As a result of Leein Hinkley going on his rampage (“Shots fired, houses burning and gunman holding police at bay in Auburn,” June 15), there has been a lot of speculation as to why Hinkley was back on the streets. There is little doubt he was a dangerous individual.

What hasn’t been talked about is the issues surrounding the bail conditions put in place. We don’t know for certain what they all were, but I would be willing to wager a week’s pay they included no contact with certain people, no weapons, no alcohol or illegal drugs, for starters. We don’t know under what conditions Hinkley could be subject to searches.

If the conditions were not voluntarily abided by, then what? It falls on law enforcement to follow up to ensure compliance based on the conditions for searches. Was any effort made between the time Hinkley was released to when he started his rampage? If he was as dangerous as now claimed by certain critics on the side of law enforcement, why not?

There have been plenty of news stories about people charged with assorted crimes that were on the streets with bail conditions. Were any efforts made to enforce those conditions before other crimes were committed? I believe that a commission, like the one looking at what happened in Lewiston, would have a field day over the issues of enforcement of bail conditions.

Stephen Martin
Alfred

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Letter: Louisiana, consider the Beatitudes

Next »

Letter: Caregiver crisis affects special needs community