Thank you for allowing me the chance to respond to your editorial "In pretrial debate, listen to sheriffs" (Our Views, April 26), which was in opposition to a measure working its way through the Florida Legislature.

I would like to clearly state what the bill actually does. The bill merely states that those who can afford to pay their own bail should do so.

When someone is arrested, it is good public policy to offer most defendants their freedom until they can have a formal first appearance before a judge. No argument there. Some defendants are let out on their own recognizance, some on bail and others into a government-run pretrial release program.

These government-run programs cost taxpayers about $30 million per year. (Also not in dispute.) The problem comes when these taxpayer-supported efforts extend beyond helping indigent or poor defendants who cannot afford bail, but instead are used to provide "free" release to those who can otherwise afford to pay their own way out.

Imagine the outcry if we provided food stamps to those who were not poor, or we provided free legal counsel to those who could afford to hire their own lawyer.

In your opposition to the bill, you raise an oft-repeated but never verified claim that to restrict eligibility into these taxpayer-financed programs would somehow increase jail populations. You even state that when the pretrial release program was ended in Pasco County, the jail population increased by 9 percent. This is simply not true. According to county records and a report by the Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA), the jail population was not affected.

Further, another independent study by OPPAGA found no correlation between the existence of these types of programs and a county's jail population.

In addition, your editorial implies that the bill would somehow impact conditions of release when it simply will not. The bill clearly and explicitly states that the bill "does not prohibit a court" from imposing conditions of release like "electronic monitoring, drug testing, substance abuse treatment or attending a batterers' intervention program."

Finally, you claim that "bond agents do not rigorously supervise released defendants as the pretrial programs do." That is also not true and frankly, no independent voice has asserted that in an open debate.

The pretrial programs run by counties are most often a call-in service whereby the defendant calls in to a county employee on a periodic basis.

When the person doesn't call in, nobody chases them down as you imply.

Instead, the defendant is either dropped from the program or a warrant is issued for their arrest. (That is why St Lucie County, for example, can report that, unbelievably, zero percent of defendants failed to appear in court.)

Urban counties are sitting on literally tens of thousands of outstanding warrants as a result. In pretrial release, nobody chases anyone down as "rigorous supervision" implies — in fact, that would be against the law. But bail agents, on the other hand, have a huge financial incentive to find errant defendants, keep tabs on their whereabouts and frankly, that is why bail agents have repeatedly proven to be a more reliable way to ensure that defendants make their way back to court. That's not just me saying it, but the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, which year after year reports that "secured release" (a.k.a. via bail) is more effective than "non-secured" release.

On behalf of the hundreds of bail agents that I represent across this nation, I appreciate the opportunity to have our side represented in this debate.