Walsh distorts Taxpayer Savings and Fairness of Bail Reform
Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh’s “Reader’s View” attacking Criminal Justice reform is full of fearmongering and fails to tell us the truth about the important reforms that she voraciously attacks.
Let’s begin with the truth: New York’s new pretrial laws will scale back our state’s pretrial jailing crisis, bring greater fairness and transparency to the system, save taxpayers millions of dollars, and enhance public safety.
Walsh tries to invoke public fear by saying that the new bail laws somehow puts us at danger from people accused - not convicted - of 2nd degree manslaughter, making a terrorist threat, promoting a sexual performance by a child.
But what Bail Reform actually does is make rich and poor subject to the same treatment.
In effect, Mary Beth Walsh is saying that people accused of serious crimes should be locked up if they’re economically struggling, but set free as long as they have plenty of money.
If there is evidence that someone accused of a severe crime is a serious flight risk or poses a danger to the public, they can be held regardless of their fanances. Their pretrial release should not depend on whether they have the money for bail - as it does under the outgoing bail law. Right now, no matter what a person is charged with, if they can pay their bail, they can go home. Which is why the vast majority of people in county jails are actually there because they are being punished for being poor or working class.
One of the most absurd points Walsh attempts to make is to object to the administrative costs of bail reform. In case she didn’t realize it, jailing people costs millions in county taxpayer dollars and the new bail law will result in massive cost savings since we will no longer be keeping people in jail for low level charges before trial. Savings which vastly exceed the administrative costs that Ms. Walsh complains about.
So knowing that bail reform saves taxpayers millions of dollars, and creates fairness, equal treatment for people of all incomes, and improves public safety, why do Mary Beth Walsh and the Republican party attack it so?
Could it be that fearmongering and scapegoating have historically been used by politicians to distract voters from the fact that these politicians are serving the interests of the rich and powerful political donor class, not their middle class and poor constituents?