If Tennessee's justice system overcrowding can be alleviated with reforms, we believe they ought to be examined. But at no time should such reforms lose sight that the crime - not the financial wherewithal of the offender - is the most significant factor in play.
The national "State of Pretrial Justice Report," released last week, gave the Volunteer State an F for its unnecessary detention of poor and working class individuals charged with crimes.
The Maryland-based Pretrial Justice Institute, which created the report, based its grades on the number of unconvicted people in jails, on whether jurisdictions use assessments to determine if someone can make bond and on whether a state has functionally eliminated "secured money bail."
Critics of the state's system say many offenders remain in jail because they can't afford to pay the price of their bond, which is supposed to ensure a defendant's appearance in court.
That's the wrong way to look at the problem, though.
Whether it's a murder or a misdemeanor, the crime is the crime. To the victim, it doesn't matter whether the offender makes a $1 million a year or $10,000.
Though nearly half the country doesn't pay federal income tax while the wealthy bear the lion's share, bonds for offenders should not be similarly commensurate with wealth.
However, that doesn't mean alternatives couldn't be considered. It only means they must be administered fairly.
For instance, if ankle monitors are considered for low-risk offenders, they must be offered regardless of ability to pay a bond. If nonviolent offenders involved in a mental health episode are diverted from booking at the jail and are seen elsewhere, all such offenders should be seen there.
Although Hamilton County has a smaller percentage of people in jail awaiting trial (51 percent) than the nation overall (66 percent), Sheriff Jim Hammond told the Times Free Press last week he has been researching cash bond alternatives. He didn't indicate what those alternatives might be, but research shows some states apparently have used alternatives with some success.
Again, we wholeheartedly agree with looking into experimentation with pretrial jail time, but such experimentation still must consider the crime and must be fair to all offenders.
A public that might be skeptical of any kind of leniency would feel differently if such changes were shown to both save the public money and keep what Hammond referred to as "the worst of the worst" behind bars.