Conclusion: Rethinking Bail

  • Max TraversEmail author
  • Emma Colvin
  • Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron
  • Rick Sarre
  • Andrew Day
  • Christine Bond


The conclusion summarizes the evidence supplied from this case study in Australia and reviews the concepts of risk and vulnerability in relation to bail. Although those with progressive views support a return to the presumption of innocence, bail laws will remain tough, especially when disturbing offences (including a mass killing) are committed by defendants granted bail. The alternative used in some US states of replacing judicial officers by algorithms would not be acceptable in most countries. However, we would recommend greater use of bail information and support schemes, and actuarial guides. Pretrial services are offered in the state of Victoria to 14% of defendants, and this program is expanding. There are practical ways to challenge business as usual and to give magistrates more options. The growth of pretrial programs may eventually lead to a welfare-oriented court in which fewer offenders are imprisoned.


  1. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2017 Keeping Australia Safe (documentary series). ABC, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  2. Beccaria, C. 1995/1764 On Crimes and Punishment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, K. 2015 Vulnerability and Young People: Care and Social Control in Policy and Practice. Policy Press, Bristol.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, D., Schwartz, M. and Boseley, L. 2012 “The promise of Justice Reinvestment”. Alternative Law Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 96–102.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, D., Cunneen, C., Schwartz, M., Stubbs, J. and Young, C. 2016 Justice Reinvestment: Winding Back Imprisonment. Palgrave, London.Google Scholar
  6. Castellano, U. 2011 Outsourcing Justice: The Role of Non-profit Caseworkers in Pretrial Release Programs. Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  7. Feeley, M. and Simon, J. 1992 “The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications”. Criminology. Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 449–474.Google Scholar
  8. Sarre, R., King, S. and Bamford, D. 2006 Remand in Custody: Critical Factors and Key Issues. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice (No. 310). Criminology Research Council, Canberra.Google Scholar
  9. Simon, J. 1988 “The ideological effects of actuarial practices”. Law and Society Review. Vol. 22, pp. 771–800.Google Scholar
  10. Wacquant, L. 2009 Punishing the Poor. Duke University Press, Durham NC.Google Scholar
  11. Willis M. 2017. Bail support: A review of the literature. Research Reports No. 4. Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max Travers
    • 1
    Email author
  • Emma Colvin
    • 2
  • Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron
    • 3
  • Rick Sarre
    • 4
  • Andrew Day
    • 5
  • Christine Bond
    • 6
  1. 1.School of Social SciencesUniversity of TasmaniaHobartAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Law and JusticeCharles Sturt UniversityBathurstAustralia
  3. 3.Tasmanian Inst Law Enforcement StudiesUniversity of TasmaniaHobart, TasmaniaAustralia
  4. 4.School of LawUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  5. 5.School of Social and Political SciencesUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  6. 6.School of Criminology & Criminal JusticeGriffith UniversityMt GravattAustralia

Personalised recommendations