A Call for Fairness: Examining Disparities in Bond Measures and Justice in Crawford County
By Logan Andrew | Editor-in-chief, FreeWire
The results of our recent poll concerning Councilwoman Carolyn Shireman’s bond have ignited considerable debate, with some suggesting that its purpose was to pressure Judge Leuthold into imposing a bond. However, the true objective was to shed light on a far broader and deeply troubling issue within our justice system: the inconsistent and often inequitable application of bond measures.
In our community, we’ve witnessed cases where individuals caught in possession of drugs have been saddled with a $100,000 bond, or where someone steals food out of desperation and faces a $75,000 bond. Yet, in stark contrast, Shireman — accused of stealing a significant amount of money from a mentally disabled man — was released without bond. This disparity is more than a mere outlier; it’s a symptom of a larger systemic flaw: a justice system that arbitrarily decides who is granted leniency and who is not, perpetuating cycles of punishment without addressing the underlying causes or fostering rehabilitation.
Bonds are supposed to serve a single purpose: ensuring that defendants appear for their court dates. They were never intended as punitive tools or mechanisms to force individuals to remain in jail until trial. And yet, in our town, this foundational principle seems to have been disregarded, largely due to the practices of Judge Leuthold. Both Sean Leuthold and his brother Shane have consistently employed excessive bond measures as instruments of control, rather than tools of justice. This publication has been accused of prejudging Shireman’s guilt, but let us be clear: she remains innocent until proven otherwise. That said, as a public official, she knowingly placed herself in a position where public scrutiny is not only warranted but expected. The same people in our comments who urge patience and argue that we should wait until her trial to assign guilt should also extend that same empathy to others — not just to public officials like Shireman, but to those whose mugshots are paraded before the community every month.
For months now, we have approached Shireman’s case with restraint. Her struggles with mental health have been evident, and we’ve refrained from adding undue criticism. But that restraint ended when she allegedly exploited someone vulnerable. Stealing from a mentally disabled individual is more than a lapse in judgment — it’s inhumane. While she deserves the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the nature of the allegations demands accountability.
The poll results speak volumes: 26 votes for a $100,000 bond, 23 for a higher bond or no bond at all, 6 for $50,000, and 0 for a PR bond or no bond. It’s worth noting that the option for “higher/no bond” was only introduced after more than 20 votes had already been cast for $100,000. This suggests that public support for a significant bond may be even stronger than these numbers reflect. However, as much as these results capture public sentiment, they also highlight an essential truth: two wrongs do not make a right.
Our justice system must uphold fairness and freedom. It should prioritize proportionality, ensuring that bond measures reflect the severity of the offense and the risk posed by the accused. In Crawford County, bonds have become punitive tools that oppress rather than serve justice, with even minor offenses resulting in amounts that far exceed national norms. Elsewhere in the country, people charged with similar nonviolent offenses are released with minimal or no bond, reserving significant sums for those accused of rape, murder, and other violent crimes. The contrast here is staggering.
The allegations against Shireman are undeniably serious. Her continued interaction with the alleged victim is troubling and could justify imposing a bond. Yet, as a community, we must resist the temptation to pass judgment prematurely. The evidence must be presented, and her guilt or innocence must be determined by the court. As a society, we should advocate for justice, not retribution. While Shireman’s alleged actions are reprehensible, our response must be guided by principle rather than anger.
This moment presents an opportunity for introspection. Let us demand that Judge Leuthold and other judicial authorities reevaluate their approach to bond measures. Let us ensure that bonds fulfill their intended purpose: securing court attendance while safeguarding the presumption of innocence. Most importantly, let us remain true to our values, making certain that our pursuit of justice does not lead us to compromise our moral compass.
