BC 2006 01 23 REGULAR - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

January 23, 2006 - Regular Meeting Page 481 Thank you again for making it possible for me to attend this conference. It was time well-spent. Respectfully Submitted, Coy Privette Chairman Carruth read the following letter dated January 20, 20061 into the record. Re: Pretrial Electronic House Arrest and Cabarrus County Jail Dear Commissioners: For several years our Cabarrus County jail facility has been overcrowded. A new county jail is in the planning and design stages, but the progress on the j ail has been slower than we would have wished. Several voices in the community have recently called for us to adopt a form of house arrest and electronic surveillance for defendants awaiting trial, rather than set bonds and keep those defendants who cannot post bond in our county jail to await trial. The proponents of this plan have asserted that such a program would save money and reduce jail overcrowding. They cite other counties and other programs which have placed persons on Electronic House Arrest. Each of the undersigned, which constitute every elected Judge and the elected Sheriff and the elected District Attorney for Cabarrus County, completely disagree that such a program would save any money or reduce jail overcrowding in Cabarrus County. We UNANIMOUSLY and completely oppose Electronic House Arrest for pretrial release for Cabarrus County as a means of avoiding or delaying the construction of adequate jail space. Such a program would NOT be an effective means for Cabarrus County to save money I nor reduce jail overcrowding I nor protect the community. We, as court officials in Cabarrus County I concluded long ago that we could not ignore the overcrowding problem. For that reason, the jail and the sheriffs department, the district attorney's office, the defense bar and the judges have worked co- operatively for over a year to add cases onto the docket early when it becomes clear that the cases are for guilty pleas or for some other prompt disposition. The jail officials carefully review the cases I but obviously they must exercise great care to see that their actions constitute neither the giving of legal advice nor coercion of inmates to make decisions against their will. The j ail officials regularly review their population to bring these cases to the attention of the District Attorney and the defense counsel (when applicable), and the paperwork is initiated and expedited to add the cases to the docket promptly. This review is an ongoing processl and has resulted in dozens of cases being expedited. However I this expedited process is now being disrupted by the transport of prisoners to and from the Alamance County j ail. On an average weekday when both District Criminal Court and Superior Criminal Court are in session, there are 25 to 50 prisoners who are tran~ported between the jail and various criminal and civil courtrooms. During the second week of January alone I there were several cases where the matters were delayed to another court date due to the unavailability of a defendant who was in Alamance County j ail. Furthermore, several other cases that might have been added on for expedited disposition could not be addressed because the defendant was not available for transport at that time. As a result, we are already experiencing a disruption in our criminal court process due to transportation issues from off- site jails. Further I in child support cases I we have been more careful to review alternatives other than jail. The jail population problem has caused us to reduce the number of persons committed to the jail for failing to pay support for their minor children. We have made increasing use of community service and other options I but.