By: Taylor Allison
Background
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”[1] While the Constitution does not guarantee bail, it mandates that when bail is granted, it cannot be excessive.[2] A criminal defendant may be released on bail when a court determines that the individual poses neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk. If, however, the court finds probable cause that a person does pose a danger to the community or is a flight risk, it may order that person to be detained pending trial.[3] Recent developments in criminal justice reform have intensified the debate over cash bail, particularly regarding cashless bail for habitual violent offenders (HVOs) who pose ongoing threats to public safety.
This debate reignited on August 22, 2025, after twenty-three-year-old Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska was fatally stabbed on the Charlotte light rail by a HVO with fourteen prior felonies who had been released on cashless bail. This killing sparked widespread outrage and catalyzed a nationwide conversation about the unintended consequences of pretrial release policies for violent repeat offenders. Following this tragedy, North Carolina lawmakers approved House Bill 307, also known as “Iryna’s Law,” forwarding it to Governor Josh Stein on September 23, 2025.[4] Iryna’s Law imposes stricter pretrial release conditions for HVOs, including eliminating cashless bail, adding new aggregating factors, authorizing involuntary mental health evaluations under certain circumstances, and permitting the suspension of magistrates who disregard the statute.[5]
North Carolina’s sweeping bail reform eliminates both the release of criminal defendants on a written promise to appear, and the use of monetary bond or electronic monitoring for defendants charged with violent offenses.[6] Under Iryna’s Law, a violent criminal defendant is ineligible for pretrial release unless the judge specifically finds that the individual poses no danger to public safety.[7] Even then, release must include monetary bond or electronic monitoring.[8] The law also adds an aggravating factor when the offense occurs while the victim uses public transportation, as in Zarutska’s case.[9] Finally, the law restricts judicial and magistrate discretion: if a magistrate fails to issue written findings justifying the release of a violent defendant, they may face suspension or removal.[10] Governor Stein signed House Bill 307 into law on October 3rd, 2025.
Comparative Context: Diverging Paths in Bail Reform
While North Carolina has significantly restricted pretrial release and cashless bail for HVOs, its approach reflects a growing national divide between states abolishing or tightening cashless bail. Illinois spearheaded the movement as the first state to abolish cash bail under the Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-Today Act (SAFE-T), effective September 2023.[11] Under the SAFE-T Act, all defendants are presumed eligible for pretrial release, with the burden on the State to justify detention.[12] Yet critics note that Cook County, Illinois’ more lenient release rules correlated with a 45 percent increase in overall crime and a 32 percent rise in violent offenses, raising public safety concerns.[13] As of 2023, New York permits judges to consider a defendant’s criminal history and status as a “persistent offender” when determining bail eligibility.[14] Conversely, New Jersey’s 2017 elimination of cash bail—refined in 2019 to incorporate nine risk-based factors—coincided with a 30 percent decrease in violent crime.[15]
Other jurisdictions, such as California and Texas, have moved in the opposite direction, tightening their bail laws. A 2024 Yolo County, California study compared defendants released on zero-dollar bail with those released on monetary bail, finding that defendants released on zero-dollar bail committed new violent felonies 175 percent more than those who posted bail. [16] One-third of these rearrests involved domestic violence, prompting Californian legislatures to pursue “smart bail reform” incorporating risk-assessment tools.[17] In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott declared bail reform an emergency after several Houston murders by offenders released on bond, endorsing laws restricting bail for violent offenses.[18]
Conclusion
Ultimately, while bail reform remains vital to a more equitable justice system, it must not come at the expense of public safety. The tragedy of Iryna Zarutska illustrates the profound human cost that arises when pretrial systems fail to distinguish between low-risk defendants and habitual violent offenders, releasing the latter under insufficiently rigorous standards. Recalibrating bail reform to incorporate rigorous risk assessment, constrained judicial discretion, and clear statutory safeguards is therefore necessary to restore public trust by preventing foreseeable harm from repeat offenders while upholding equitable pretrial standards. In the end, justice reform must not mean justice abandoned.
[1] U.S. Const. amend. VIII
[2] U.S. v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 752-3 (1987).
[3] See id. at 748.
[4] Hayley Bedard, North Carolina Legislature Passes Sweeping Criminal Law Legislation in Effort to Restart Executions, Death Penalty Info. Ctr. (Oct. 1, 2025), https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/north-carolina-legislature-passes-sweeping-criminal-law-legislation-in-effort-to-restart-executions; see H.B.307, 168th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (NC 2025).
[5] H.B.307, 168th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (NC 2025).
[6] Id.
[7] Id.; Bedard, supra note 4.
[8] H.B.307, 168th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (NC 2025).
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Caroline Brady, The Elimination of Cash Bail in Illinois, Richmond Pub. Int. L. Rev.: F. Blog (Feb. 26, 2024), https://pilr.richmond.edu/2024/02/26/the-elimination-of-cash-bail-in-illinois; see Ames Grawert et. al., The Fate of Bail Reform in Illinois, State Court Report (July 18, 2023), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/fate-bail-reform-illinois?_gl=1*1bcyand*_gcl_au*MTI4NzI0MjI1Mi4xNzYyMzU0Njc1.
[12] Id.
[13] Cassell, Paul and Fowles, Richard, Does Bail Reform Increase Crime? An Empirical Assessment of the Public Safety Implications of Bail Reform in Cook County, Illinois, Utah L. Faculty Scholarship (2020),
[14] Brianna Seid, The Facts on Bail Reform in New York: How Pretrial Detention and Release Works Now, Brennan ctr. for just. (Mar. 13, 2024), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/facts-bail-reform-new-york-how-pretrial-detention-and-release-works-now.
[15] David Reimel, Algorithms & Instruments: The Effective Elimination of New Jersey’s Cash Bail System and Its Replacement, 124 Pa. St. L. Rev. 193, 212 (2019).
[16] Yolo County District Attorney’s Office, Yolo County: Revised Posted Bail vs Zero Bail Analysis, at 15 (Jan. 19, 2024).
[17] Julie Watts, Updated $0 bail study: Suspects released had twice the felony rearrests, three times the violent crime rearrests, CBS News (Jan. 17, 2025, 12:45 PM), https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/zero-dollar-bail-study-felony-violent-crime-arrests/.
[18] Press Release, Governor Abbot Highlights Texas’s Deadly, Broken Bail System In Houston, Off. of the tex. gov. (April 30, 2025), https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-highlights-texas-deadly-broken-bail-system-in-houston.
