7/21/2022
[Editors note: Names have been changed to protect privacy.]
I have a friend, we’ll call him Lenny. In the past three months, Lenny got two DUIs and was arrested. Both times, Lenny bonded out and is awaiting trial.
No, these are not Lenny’s first DUIs.
Lenny knows he fucked up. He knows he’ll probably never have the privilege of driving again, and he’s accepted that. He sold his car, not just because he knows he’ll never have a license again, but he’s afraid to get behind a wheel because he has a disease called alcoholism.
As he awaits trial, he is back in treatment. Since he is out on bond, Lenny is still able to work at the big company he works for and is economically productive. He is also still able to take care of his minor daughter. He has committed no new crimes.
DUIs are serious crimes. Merely having a disease does not absolve someone of a crime. Driving while intoxicated could have deadly consequences. Thankfully, none of the times Lenny was arrested resulted in anyone being harmed. On the one hand, this fact doesn’t diminish that driving while intoxicated is a crime. On the other, this fact is a mitigating circumstance on how we should punish an individual.
I mention all this because recently Lenny received a visit at his house from the local police department. They were there to tell Lenny that his charges had been increased by the States Attorney, Don Knapp, and they were there to arrest him for the upgraded charge. He’ll need five grand to be released pending trial.
Again, Lenny has committed no new crimes since originally being released. (Also, Lenny is innocent until proven guilty, but I digress.) He’s attended all his court dates so far.
Now, depending on the evidence available, new and/or increased charges can be filed against a person, and this is at the discretion of the States Attorney. But, exactly who does it serve to incarcerate Lenny for this? He hasn’t committed any new offenses. Bail is set to guarantee a defendant’s appearance at court; Lenny hasn’t missed a court date. If Lenny was a threat to the community, he would have just been denied bail. So, Lenny is not a flight risk or a danger to society.
If Lenny were again incarcerated for this upgraded offense, they’d likely be there long enough they would lose their job. This means they cease to be economically productive. Lenny probably can’t afford the ransom (and that’s exactly what cash bail is; a ransoming of bodies) needed to bond out. So, they’d be stuck in jail which costs taxpayers $75 a day to hold someone. Lenny’s minor child would likely be placed in foster care, again at taxpayer expense.
Who benefits from incarcerating Lenny again for a nonviolent offense? Obviously not Lenny or his family. Nor does it seem beneficial to the taxpayers as Lenny does not appear to be a flight risk, a danger to society, and is still economically productive.
Who does it benefit? It benefits the police officers that get paid to arrest Lenny. It benefits the Corrections officers that get paid to lock Lenny up in a cage. It also benefits corporations like Aramark and IC Solutions who are contracted with the local jail and benefit from increased incarceration. Again, it benefits all these people by giving them your tax dollars.
Cash bail will be abolished January 1st 2023, and it literally can not come soon enough. Stupid on Crime politicians like States Attorney Don Knapp are trying to milk the current ransom system for everything it’s worth regardless of the cost to taxpayers. Because they don’t actually care about the taxpayers or the benefits/negatives to society. They care about making police unions and the corporations that profit off of mass incarceration happy.
This website uses cookies.
View Comments
I appreciate and is grateful for this story.