Steve Chapman – Bail reform and violent crime | Opinion Columnists

July 4th is an occasion for the reading of the Declaration of Independence. But a better project could be reading the Constitution, a document many Americans revere without fully understanding it.

Many police officers belong to this group, although they take an oath to keep it and are severely affected by it in the performance of their duties. One provision that is sometimes neglected is the eighth Amendment, which says, “No excessive deposits are required”.

This provision is based on the long-standing right of the defendants to be released on bail unless no amount would guarantee their appearance in court – especially in capital matters. But for others, the right to release before trial is implicit in the amendment. After all, denying a deposit has exactly the same effect as imposing an excessive deposit.

Some states that recognize this fundamental freedom have passed laws ending the use of cash deposits. The reason for this is that large numbers of defendants who demand payment of money have languished in prison, not because they have been proven guilty or are considered dangerous, but because they are poor. The vast majority of them will appear in court without them, and judges may require electronic surveillance to ensure this.

But the bail reform coincided with a surge in violent crime across the country, and some police officers said it was no accident. The New York Police Commissioner Dermot Shea condemned the changes in his state as a “challenge to public safety”. When Illinois passed a cash bail bill that year, the Chicago Police Union chief said it “just gave the keys to the criminals.”

The evidence for the prosecution is scant. Violent crime increased last year even in places where bail laws were not reformed, suggesting that something else – like the pandemic or the economic shutdown, or both – was the real cause. And overall crime in the United States fell in the first half of 2020, according to the FBI – which you wouldn’t expect when hordes of unrepentant criminals poured out of jails.

The opponents of the surety reform are missing some important points. The bail is not intended to guarantee that no one charged with a crime will commit a crime during the trial. It is on bail that some defendants do just that. The only way to prevent this from happening is to lock them all up before the government proves they did something wrong.

“This traditional right to freedom before conviction enables the unhindered preparation of a defense and serves to prevent the imposition of a sentence before conviction,” said the Supreme Court in 1951. Innocence, which was only secured after centuries of struggle, would lose its meaning . “

Cook County attorney Kim Foxx understands this, even if her critics don’t. In a videoconference sponsored by the Illinois Justice Project on Wednesday, she found that some people think defendants should be locked up before they are even sentenced.

“You missed the step in the middle, where we have not actually come to a process,” she said pointedly. But “the presumption of innocence applies to the accused until guilt is established.”

The logic of those who oppose the abolition of the cash deposit is that dangerous suspects should not be released. But the only sure way to determine which are dangerous is to bring them to justice. In addition, the demand for money loans does not keep the more dangerous defendants behind bars. It keeps the poorest behind bars.

Cash bail is a form of punishment that can lead to more than less crime. Defendants who cannot raise the money can lose their jobs, homes, and custody of their children. Condemning these people to poverty and displacement is not a formula to get them onto the streets.

In Illinois, as in many other states, judges can refuse to bond defendants who they believe pose a public safety risk. The abolition of bail does not prevent Richter from simply refusing bail to this select group. The right to bail is not unlimited.

But selling freedom only to those who can afford it is not a formula for fairness or security. Our criminal and judicial system is based on the presumption of innocence. The critics of the bail reform prefer a presumption of guilt.

(Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune and Creators Syndicate.)