Originally posted at anti-aggressionleague.com
Source: ACLU of Louisiana
And I'll leave it at that because his reason for doing so does not justify it. The means does not justify the end. Losing a week of wages and possibly your job is not a 'mere inconvenience'; neither is the distressed caused by being behind bars, or being put in the same room with actual criminals that may re-victimize you. Spending time in jail is not like getting a traffic ticket or having to do community service on the weekends. The principle of the matter is that no one should be put in jail without being charged with a crime. Making an exception in one case opens the door to making exceptions in other cases as well. When you have a policy of jailing people without charging them with a crime on the basis of expediency (short-term gains), you set a precedent for jailing people not charged with a crime in other cases as well, as long as the 'common good' can be invoked as an excuse. In the long run we will learn that expediency is the mother of despotism, but that doesn't concern public officials who are only worried about getting reelected and leaving office with a golden parachute. Cannizzaro isn't concerned about 'public safety' or the wellbeing of victims; his public image, fragile ego, and salary is a stake if victims don't testify, and that is really the motive behind his policy.