That's true, but not always politically viable. You only get to muster up the political will to take a swing at the big structural problems every so often. If this turns out to be horribly insufficient of a measure, it'll be a few years before it's likely to change again, so for that reason it's understandable for organizations like the ACLU to be annoyed at what they see as missing their shot.
And that's why the ACLU is still working to make regulation of this rule and how it's assessments work more fair. It wanted changes to the risk assessment tools in the bill, but didn't get that. What I think the various California ACLU groups (there are three of them actually) groups wanted data collection, independent risk assessment service agencies, and better due process for those facing negative bail decisions.
Anyway they are going to try to get changes to tweak the law, probably try to do their own assessments of racial bias, and I expect they'll sue locally for specific county level changes that are allowed within the law.
I think we'll get there. We know that existing risk assessment tools tend to overestimate black and latino people reoffending and underestimate white people, and if they can show a systemic bias they'll have ammunition to change things.
Getting rid of the bail industry is huge though, especially getting rid of lobbying from them against this in the next round. I'm hopeful that this will be a step forward, and allow for another step forward.
What you really want is a system that allows further changes based on assessment of it's faults.
reply