Writer voting ‘yes’ on Amendment 1
How can Steven Hale in a recent TFP article say, with a straight face, that (Amendment 1) “will do nothing to keep us safe?” Ask those victims, of a criminal out on bail, if they feel the same way. Why is Amendment 1 even being proposed? Answer: The judges’/DAs’ use of “discretion” has released far too many dangerous criminals back into the community. They have done this to themselves. They are making a mockery of police investigations/arrests and our entire justice system.
How do rap sheets get so long? Answer: A revolving door of justice. Criminals aren’t held accountable. Likewise, judges and DAs are never held accountable for their poor, shortsightedness when it results in yet another crime by a criminal out on bail. Only the victims and their families suffer the consequences.
The chances of reforming/reconsidering judicial immunity that cloak judges with protection are nonexistent. Innocent until proven guilty is a foundational principle of our justice system, but that is no excuse for freeing violent criminals with bail. There is absolutely no correlation between bail and innocence or guilt. Just because these criminals are often convicted on lesser charges, because of plea deals, doesn’t mean they are innocent. This amendment is a start to limit judges’/DAs’ discretion, though. Is it perfect? No, but neither is the co-opted ideology of social justice and leniency for bail that is being abused by judges/DAs throughout the USA. Voting YES to Amendment #1.
Robert Holmes