After Waukesha Parade Attack, Progressives Need to Admit Their Bail Reforms Don’t Work
In recent years, law enforcement has been warning radical district attorneys and legislators that their bail “reforms” would get people killed. Progressive Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm spearheaded efforts to eliminate or substantially reduce bail since he was elected in 2007. Now he has to explain to the world why he let Darrell Brooks out on $1,000 bail after he allegedly ran over his girlfriend. Free to roam, Brooks then mowed down dozens of people at a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wis., killing six.
In its traditional form, bail is an amount of money that a criminal defendant must pay to be released from jail pending trial. The amount of bail that judges set is usually determined by the risk of flight by the defendant and the likely danger to the community if the defendant is released. A defendant with no prior criminal record arrested for stealing a car might be released on bail of $100. A defendant with a lengthy criminal record, who previously had failed to appear for court appearances, and is now charged with a rape that was captured on video, might have bail set at $5 million.
When you hear that a defendant is sitting in jail merely because he does not have the cash to make bail, consider the example of the charged rapist above. It’s literally true that he lacks the $5 million in cash for bail, but practically speaking, the judgment of the court is that he should not be released pretrial — hence the high bail amount.
Some progressives want to abolish cash bail at the same time as abolishing jails and the police. Others want bail applied only in the case of felonies or some other cohort of violent crimes. Still others want bail always to be set at amounts that a defendant can make. A new proposal from a few law professors even suggests that the government should set bail and then subsidize the bail payments.
In New York, Democrats rammed through a bail-reform bill that stripped judges’ ability to require cash bail for certain offenses. Violent crime has risen, particularly in New York City, and many observers point to the reform as a factor.
The bail-reform movement is based on a dishonest premise. Radical prosecutors, progressive politicians and mainstream media assure the public that almost every defendant can be released on bail without causing an increase in violence. In a triumph of sophistry, some progressives even argue that releasing more people leads to less violence.
The truth is straightforward. If the system lets almost everybody out on bail pending trial, we will see more violence and crime. Most people arrested for violent crimes are guilty of those crimes. Those who have committed violent crimes in the past are likely to commit more violent crimes in the future.
Moreover, if defendants know that showing up for a later court hearing is likely to result in their being sent to prison or even being put under supervision, many will never show up for trial. They will make a calculated bet that the same radical prosecutor who pushed for bail reform will declare an amnesty for failure-to-appear arrest warrants. Criminals are not stupid.
The Milwaukee district attorney told the truth when he “guaranteed” that this kind of reform would lead to murder. Woke prosecutors are angry now not because six people are dead and scores more maimed in Waukesha but because one of their own told the truth about the consequences of these policies. And the only safe guarantee going forward is that this type of bail reform — along with de-prosecution, de-carceration, and de-funding of police — will lead to more mayhem.
How much more before prosecutors like Chisholm recognize that reality has begun to invalidate their approach?
______________________
Tom Hogan has served as a federal prosecutor, local prosecutor and elected district attorney. Adapted from City Journal.
This piece originally appeared in New York Post