One of the most contentious issues in the last municipal elections in New York City and across the rest of the state was the “bail reform” law that was passed a few years ago. It included language mandating judges to find the “least restrictive” conditions possible to ensure that suspects would not skip out on their court dates. The result was a situation where nearly every accused criminal who hadn’t committed one of the more serious, violent crimes was immediately put back on the street. The resultant spiraling crime rates have had even law-abiding residents in the liberal urban areas up in arms. Now, as New York prepares to pass its long-overdue budget bill, Governor Kathy Hochul has relented and announced that at least some of the bail reform language would be rolled back. But the New York Post questions whether it will actually do any good at this point.

Gov. Kathy Hochul said the state’s final spending plan will loosen limits on cash bail.

Even if she truly gets her way, will judges — especially in New York City — actually use that discretion to lock up more clear threats to public safety?

The gov’s “conceptual agreement” with the Legislature’s leaders will apparently remove the mandate that jurists impose “least restrictive” conditions that still ensure accused criminals won’t flee.

As the Post points out, we still don’t have the final language that will be signed into law. But lawmakers who have previewed it describe the changes as being more cosmetic than substantial. Many serious crimes will still remain in the “no bail” category.

Of additional concern is the description of how the changes will supposedly give judges “more options” when considering setting bail. But many of the vacancies in the courts over the past several years have been filled by jurists who were selected specifically because of their support of “justice reform.” Just because they suddenly have a new option, that doesn’t mean they will necessarily exercise it.

The Post offers several recent examples. One judge in the Bronx recently set Tyresse Minter, a repeat offender with a long rap sheet free without bail after he was accused of killing a child. When Hochul intervened (to her credit) to have Minter jailed again for violating parole, a second state Supreme Court judge stepped in and ordered him to be set loose again, although they did require an ankle monitor.

When Messiah Nantwi was jailed for shooting at police officers, his bail was lowered by that same Supreme Court judge to the point where he was able to be sprung. Days later he murdered two more people. Other examples abound.

The bottom line is that progressives in New York, particularly in the Big Apple, have been at this for a while. The “empty the jails” mentality has been baked into the cake at this point. A few minor tweaks to the wording of the law may not wind up changing anything at this stage. A lot of those judges will need to be replaced, and that could take years. And the law needs a complete overhaul, bringing back mandatory bail levels for serious crimes. But the will still doesn’t appear to exist to make that happen.

In other words, New Yorkers are still getting precisely what they voted for. And then some of them have the nerve to complain after their apartment is broken into for the third time in as many months. Pardon me if I’m rather short on sympathy.