Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My guess is this law was in effect to give the sheriff a little incentive to be careful with the money. Which works, sometimes, in cases like you give your kids 30 dollars spending money at Sea World and anything they have left over they can pocket.
Or you give a traveling nurse a housing stipend, and whatever she has left over she can pocket.
But you don't do that if the money is intended to benefit other people that they don't care about, and anything they can basically cheat them out of they can keep for themselves.
Stupid, stupid.
A good perspective, and may have been put in place to defeat a cozy supplier/Sheriff relationship where inflated prices were being paid and kickback given to the Sheriff from the supplier.
I suppose this way also makes it difficult for the Sheriff to go to the legislature and say he needs a bigger budget.
Still, I think he's at the point where Unicef is asking him for purchasing tips.
Four pages in and it's easy to spot the usual suspects that couldn't even be bothered to read the article itself beyond the headline before forming their opinions.
We even have some posters that think what he did was illegal. (not saying we have to like it)
Nobody has even yet mentioned the 150k debt he got stuck with when his predecessor died?
There's no proof it it though, is there? I guess if I "legally stole" 3/4 of a million dollars I might be inclined to claim that I'm actually a victim too
Well, having worked in "the system" I would describe it in terms that are not quite that dire. However, the following things are true:
1. A large percentage of the public does not really accept the maxim "innocent until proven guilty". They view it more in terms of "if someone was arrested they must be guilty of something". Some people even view things in terms of we shouldn't take the chance of releasing someone from jail who "might be guilty". Another attitude is believing that only "people who are innocent" should have constitutional rights. Which ignores the role those rights play in getting a fair trial and determining innocence.
2. When you talk about the people in county jail, the reality is the jail is full of people who are there awaiting trial who cannot afford cash bail. The jail is also full of petty offenders who have primarily committed crimes involved drugs and alcohol. Mental illness is another factor. America is not kind to the mentally ill and most people would rather shove them in a jail out-of-sight than pay for them to have out-patient mental health care within the community.
3. The sheriff is an elected official. Most people vote for the sheriff based on the fact that he is a republican or a democrat and make little attempt to educate themselves about who would be the better candidate for sheriff. There is not an election that I vote where I do not "split my ticket". In other words, I may vote primarily democrat, but I always vote for a number of republican candidates that I approve of. I do not think many other people are that conscientious. Many make one mark at the top of a ballot for a political party and do not worry about individual races. What this means is that when the sheriff is elected as long as he makes the people think that "he is tough on crime" he is likely to keep his position as county sheriff for a long time. Look how many years the people of Maricopa County, Arizona returned that loon Joe Arpaio to office. He was in his eighties when he was finally voted out.
4. A large percentage of those charged with a crime cannot afford an attorney and will be represented by the public defender. Many are quite capable and do their best, but they have high case loads and it is difficult to provide much individual attention to one case.
5. Bail is becoming a national scandal. The percentage of offenders able to make bail has decreased to under 50% of the total people charged with a crime. We desperately need a system that looks at other factors than the ability to pay money to obtain release. However, bail bond companies like the system the way it is and its hard to accomplish much in the way of change.
This is the kind of system that the sheriff described in the OP thrives in. He has little oversight. He has high potential make money. He knows how to keep on the good side of the electorate by only letting them see a distorted picture of what he does.
In short, many reforms are needed.
Excellent post! I wish we could get everyone on C-D to read it, most people have no idea how the system works and you described it concisely and accurately
My sister-in-law lives in Missouri, one of the members of her church got arrested for being an accomplice to a murder. He had loaned his truck to his son, his rifle was in a rack in the truck. His no good son used the gun to kill a guy who had cheated him on a drug deal, put the dead guy in the truck and dumped his body in a lake. They kept the dad in jail for a year and he spent another year on an ankle monitor before the DA dropped the charges, they never took him to trial they just kept postponing it until the son pled guilty.
It's like a rich person finding a tax loophole that fits their situation exactly. Yup, he is going to take it because it's the law. The sheriff did nothing legally wrong, he did what he was expected to do. They need to get rid of the law. The law is the problem.
But I would sure hate to be in that jail. I am positive the food is abominable!
Wonder if some of people that were locked up under him will come for him (legally or otherwise).
I know that everyone on CD is a fine upstanding moral citizen, but is this the way you want to be treated if you or a member of your family get arrested? Yes, innocent people do get arrested.
It's like a rich person finding a tax loophole that fits their situation exactly. Yup, he is going to take it because it's the law. The sheriff did nothing legally wrong, he did what he was expected to do. They need to get rid of the law. The law is the problem.
But I would sure hate to be in that jail. I am positive the food is abominable!
^^ This ^^
If a stranger were to give you 5 dollars and told you to go buy him some bread and you get to keep the change, you would buy the cheapest loaf of bread you could find.
The huge problem with the law is that this is tax payer money. He feeds the prisoners the cheapest food possible using tax payer money and then pockets the rest of tax payer money. This money should either be given back to the tax payers or kept in a fund for future jail necessities.
The law should be changed, but knowing it is Alabama, I suspect nothing will change.
There is no proof that he actually was stuck with $150,000 debt, or that he repaid it.
It's sourced in your own linked article in the first post of the thread.
This discussion just kinda hit rock bottom.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
