There is a whole heck of a lot to unpack in the idea that we must jail people suspected but not convicted of violent crimes "for public safety" unless they have financial means in which case it's totes copacetic.
So much of our carceral system is just punishments that are completely unconstitutional being accepted because we supposedly need them and because on paper the method of punishment is for another purpose.
The people who are jailed pending trial have not, in the eyes of the law, committed a crime yet. It would be illegal to imprison them as punishment for a crime of which they have not been convicted.
But when we discuss reforms, the chorus is "Should have thought of that before they broke the law." When people talk about the conditions in the jails, "It's not supposed to be a hotel."
Well... why shouldn't it be a hotel? The public good supposedly being served by holding people until trial is that it ensures they show up for trial. If we take as given that this can be justified under the Constitution, how do we justify not holding them comfortably?
"But how would we afford that kind of accommodations for all the people being jailed?"
1. Housing people in what is functionally a prison is expensive, too.
2. Maybe we're jailing too many people.
1. Housing people in what is functionally a prison is expensive, too.
2. Maybe we're jailing too many people.
