Jails for the Innocent and Guilty
by Phillip J. Hubbell

A recent story in the Dallas Morning News talked about concerns with the condition of the jail in Dallas county.  This topic comes up every year around the holidays.  I guess journalists think the public gets all misty eyed about criminals during the Christmas season.  Things like sanitation, mental health treatment and drug treatment are apparently at the top of "somebody who cares" list.  When I first read the report I definitely fell into the category of “those who don’t care even a little bit.”   

But I got to thinking about the nature of our judicial system and came to the conclusion that I do care.  However, like most things, I have a different take on how things should work.  My approach to controversial issues involves the liberal application of reason and logic so my ideas generally bear no resemblance to current conditions or processes.  The reason for this is that most people base their thinking on emotions and laws regarding criminal justice almost always stem from some emotionally intensive event or series of events. 

If not for the protections of the Bill of Rights, most criminals would still be drawn and quartered.  I think for some crimes this is still a pretty good idea, but that is a topic for another column, as is my opinion of lawyers and the laws written in legalese so that lawyers can make money in almost any instance involving conflict. 

In this country, here is what happens:  A crime is committed, a suspect is identified, arrested, booked, jailed, arraigned, bonded out (mostly), tried, convicted or acquitted, sentenced or released, imprisoned as directed by the law, the judge or the jury depending on the jurisdiction. 

I have a problem with a small part of this process.  One legal tenet that is fairly unique to Western Civilization is the presumption of innocence.  Yet in our jail system we treat the arrested and the convicted the same way.  As a matter of fact they can be placed in the same cell in a lot of jurisdictions.  So those presumed innocent and those adjudicated guilty are equally treated. 

Here is where I agree with the do-gooders and liberals who want to make sure our criminal class is comfy and cozy.  Well, I half agree.  I think that our jail system should have two tiers; one for the arrested and presumed innocent and one for the confirmed guilty.   The jails for the presumed innocent should be comfortable and clean, a kinder and gentler jail.  We should also make a concerted effort to segregate accused serial murderers from accused shoplifters. 

On the other hand, jails for convicted criminals, duly found guilty of their specific crime by a jury of their peers should go to a jail that is cold and drafty, a place where nobody with any sense would ever want to go.  The jails and prisons for the convicted should be deterrents in and of themselves. 

The problem with the current system is that housing the two groups together punishes without adjudication and creates a presumption of guilt among the jail staff treating the convicted and arrested equally.  This is not fair on its face.  If I am arrested but not convicted, the law has no standing to punish me out of proportion to my status as presumed innocent and financially incapable of posting bail. 

I believe that such a system would go a long ways toward mitigating the confrontational relationship between the police agencies and the public at large.  Those arrested would be the accused and those convicted would be the perpetrator.  Currently everyone is either a perpetrator or a potential perpetrator.

 Phillip J Hubbell is a free lance writer and author who grew up in Cooke County but now lives in Omaha, Nebraska…where it is cold.