Stop paying to jail suspects in petty crimes

Historically in America, those accused of minor crimes are allowed to remain free, living at home and earning paychecks, while they await trial — as long as they first post bail.

That’s no big deal if you have money in the bank. Get cited for driving with an expired license, post $500 and continue on with your life.

But what if you can’t post $500? Then you go to jail, where taxpayers pay to house, feed and tend to you until trial.

A minor crime becomes a bump in the road for people with money and the end of the road for people without. It’s a modern-day debtor’s prison … and part of why our jails are so full.

For that reason, a number of places have stopped demanding bail for people accused of minor crimes who aren’t considered dangerous or flight risks.

And last month, State Attorney Aramis Ayala announced that she wanted to follow suit in Orange and Osceola counties, starting Friday, June 1.

I was curious to see the reactions.

Generally, they were positive. Judges, fiscal watchdogs and social-justice advocates said it makes sense, saving tax dollars and providing more equal justice.

Chief Judge Fred Lauten called the decision part of a “national movement.” Florida TaxWatch said it was studying a possible statewide approach. Retired Seminole Judge O.H. Eaton, an expert on Florida courts, called monetary bail “a 19th-century concept that has no place in modern criminal justice.”

But what I found most interesting was the handful of critics.

As I drove to work one day, I heard a radio DJ complain about Ayala’s new policy because he didn’t like the idea of freeing someone who, say, broke into his house.

And I read an op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel that asked readers to consider the horrors of releasing “a man accused of dealing drugs to middle-schoolers; a man with multiple outstanding warrants who made ‘terroristic threats.’ ” Both sound scary. Both are also completely bogus examples.

Neither criminal would be affected by Ayala’s new approach. This new policy doesn’t do anything for burglars or drug dealers.

Nor for rapists, stalkers or people who commit virtually any serious or violent crime.

Instead, Ayala selected a handful of misdemeanors — driving without a license or tag, panhandling, loitering and possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana.

The accused wouldn’t get a break on their crime. The prosecutor would merely recommend they remain out of jail while awaiting trial — and only if they are local residents who have no history of violence and aren’t considered flight risks.

The final decision will still rest with judges — where it should and

always has.

Ayala’s approach is significantly scaled back from places such as New Jersey that have essentially done away with bail altogether.

So all those scary scenarios cited by a handful of opponents? They’re just fictional fear-mongering here.

It’s telling when the best argument a critic has is a fake one.

I’m still watching Ayala. I didn’t like that she rode into office on an inflammatory race-baiting campaign funded by out-ofstate billionaire George Soros. (Though, unlike many of those who’ve screamed about that, I’m concerned any time a sugar daddy bankrolls a campaign … not just the sugar daddies I dislike.)

And I thought that, if she wanted to end pursuit of the death penalty, she should’ve been upfront about that during her campaign.

But I don’t evaluate public policy based on the person proposing it; rather, what the policy actually does.

And Ayala is right when she said: “Economic bias has no place in our justice system.”

I also don’t want to pay to house accused loiterers when they could be making a living to pay their own way in life.

Especially in a country that has the largest prison population and highest incarceration rate on the planet.

A Sentinel study found as many as one out of every 10 people in the Osceola jail were there awaiting trial on these minor charges.

Oh, and one other thing: Remember that newspaper op-ed I mentioned above? The one that said ending bail for minor crimes was a horrible idea?

Yeah, that piece wasn’t written by a disinterested observer. It was penned by the head of a national bail-bond association.

That’s who wants to keep the current system going — a South Carolina-based group whose motto is: “Securing our industry’s future.” Not “Keeping society safe.” Not “Watching out for tax dollars.” Not “Ensuring equal justice.” Basically: Keeping our gravy train running.

And that’s a cruddy way to run a justice system.