Bail or No Bail????

[GUNS-R-US]

Friction between lawmakers over bail limit bill
Bills: House, Senate at odds over what other crimes incur bail denial

Lawmakers have kept partisan politics to a minimum as they work to limit the constitutional right to bail.

Now unity is fraying over the issue, but the seams are between not Republicans and Democrats, but House and the Senate.

Both chambers of the Legislature have voted overwhelmingly to change the state constitution to allow judges to deny bail in certain cases. Both of the proposals they want to send to voters would apply only to criminal suspects staring down life in prison.

And both changes, if they had been in effect last year, would have allowed a judge to detain Maurice Clemmons before he killed four Lakewood police officers.

But House members argue that only their version would lock up enough dangerous criminals.

“It definitely will protect more people,” said Rep. Mike Hope, a Seattle police officer who sponsored the House version. The Senate measure “doesn’t even cover half of 1 percent, when you’re looking at crimes.”

Judges can already deny bail to suspects facing the death penalty. The Senate would let them do the same to people accused of a crime that could land them in prison for life with no early release, including a third strike for certain serious crimes and a second strike for sex crimes.

The House would allow denial of bail for any potential life sentence, regardless of whether there is a possibility of early release. That would add first offenses on many of the most serious crimes – including murder, rape, first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary and first-degree arson.

Rep. Christopher Hurst said 1,021 people were sentenced in 2009 for crimes the House would cover. The Senate version would have applied to just 28 people, he said. Those numbers do not count suspects who were charged and later exonerated, who could also be denied bail.

Clemmons bailed out of jail six days before the Nov. 29 shootings, despite facing a potential third strike on a child rape charge.

Hope, a Republican from Lake Stevens, and Hurst, a Democrat from Enumclaw, hope they can get senators to budge from their position. They’re critical of the legislation sponsored by Sen. Mike Carrell, a Lakewood Republican.

“Mike is standing on a teeny little island all by himself with no support,” Hurst said.

Carrell is conciliatory toward his House critics. He likes the House version, but said the deal he struck with Seattle Democratic Sen. Adam Kline, while not as tough as he would have liked, had the best shot at passing the Senate.

“I’m convinced that we’re going to come up with some language that will address the concerns of everybody,” Carrell said. In the legislative session that ends March 11, “We’ve got three weeks to go. It’s not time for anybody to say that everything is blown up or anything like that.”

There seemed to be little danger of that just over a week ago, when Carrell’s proposed constitutional amendment passed the Senate 43-4 after Hope’s proposal passed the House 80-17. Two-thirds majorities are required to send a constitutional change to the voters.

But now Carrell is talking about scrapping both proposals and trying an entirely different approach, which he didn’t want to disclose publicly before working out details.

Hope is skeptical, saying the House already has compromised enough by scaling back Gov. Chris Gregoire’s proposal, which police groups preferred. It would have given judges wide authority to detain people seen as a threat to public safety.

“If we can cast a wider net, to get some of these really bad people off the street, then I would be in favor of that,” said Lakewood Police Chief Bret Farrar, who prefers the House version.

The American Civil Liberties Union says the net would grow too wide with any of the constitutional changes proposed, but particularly with the House version, which goes beyond third-strike offenders including Clemmons to take in an unknown number of other crimes.

“Why add in these large numbers of other people?” asked Shankar Narayan, legislative director for the ACLU. “I think it’s likely to be thousands of people whose crimes don’t rise to that level of seriousness.”

So what do yawl think???  I'm not real big on changing Constitutions, but what happened to our Cops around here was some real bad JUJU! It especially scares me to do it on the heels of these Tragedies. That's how Australia lost their Gun Rights all worked up in emotions in stead of common since and clear thinking! I don't like action for the sake of action. IMO If your going to do something it must be right first and necessary second!

[tt11758]

Just out of curiosity, is there a "bail schedule" for various offenses in your state, or do the judges have latitude in how high they set bail?  Point being, why deny bail if you have the leeway to set it at $100 trillion?

[GUNS-R-US]

Just out of curiosity, is there a "bail schedule" for various offenses in your state, or do the judges have latitude in how high they set bail?  Point being, why deny bail if you have the leeway to set it at $100 trillion?

Their is a bond schedule but what I found in a brief search it appears to just be a suggested amount.   

[twyacht]

I have no faith in gov't solving much at all. But bail is all over the map right now, and at all levels. City, State, Federal.

We have all read or heard about the repeat sex offender getting out on a low bail, AND than the white collar crime with no physical harm, gets a six figure bail.

Here in S. Fl. DUI Manslaughter, bail was set at $1000.  Check fraud, bail was $10,000. Which one is more dangerous to the public?

I think there are plenty of dumb Magistrates & Judges that could use some reality. The Fed should stop the Nanny mentality at the state level, and the State Legislatures should buck up the guidelines.

[tombogan03884]

I think THIS is where CRIME CONTROL  SHOULD have started if it were not a smoke screen for disarming us.
The REAL source of violent crime, is violent criminals.
These individuals used to be called "Outlaws" because they were "outside" the law. This meant that since they refused to be governed by Societies rules, they were due none of its protections.
They were fair game.
Any one who is SERIOUS about fighting "crime" has to start by locking up bad guys and getting them off the street.
Now if they speed up the death penalty, and start using it for repeat sex offenders ?

"Clemmons bailed out of jail six days before the Nov. 29 shootings, despite facing a potential third strike on a child rape charge."        ?  ?  ?

WTF !!!!!   WTF was this animal not in CHAINS in some cage   ?  ?
                                                                            

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

2 things, bail is a right, not a privilege. Its set out in the US Constitution and every state Con. that I know of. It can only be denied if the acused is deemed a flight risk or a continuing danger. The burden is on the tate to prove this.
To me, that would indicate that someone facing life has an incentive to flee. Further, if the crime was that serious, they might reasonably be judged a threat to others.
I would oppose anything that took away judicial discretion, but it should sure be on the table for life worthy crimes, violent recidivists and illegalls.
FQ13

[twyacht]

This is the same premise of "structured sentencing". Judges have to be "guided" by the nanny state on how to impose sentence because too many scumbags fell through the cracks.

Repeat sex offender keeps getting bail, keeps getting minimal time, and gets out, and DOES IT AGAIN!!!!

Yet, white collar crime, will impose 1/2 million dollar bail, and throw them to Club Fed for 20 years, while the sex offender gets 3 to 5, and made bail through a bail bondsman for $250..

The judges need to be reminded, but they should have the power NOT the gov't. to set bail and sentence. If Judges suck they should be brought in front of a panel of their peers (fellow judges), and dealt with,

The reverence for "your honor" can be maintained, but if a judge is an idiot, needs to be dealt with and removed.

[GUNS-R-US]

2 things, bail is a right, not a privilege. Its set out in the US Constitution and every state Con. that I know of. It can only be denied if the acused is deemed a flight risk or a continuing danger. The burden is on the tate to prove this.
To me, that would indicate that someone facing life has an incentive to flee. Further, if the crime was that serious, they might reasonably be judged a threat to others.
I would oppose anything that took away judicial discretion, but it should sure be on the table for life worthy crimes, violent recidivists and illegalls.
FQ13

The VIII Amendent States "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

 I attached one of the proposed changes to the state constitution. I think the leading one.

 Summary of Bill (Recommended Substitute): Under Article I, Sec. 20 of the Washington State Constitution, all persons charged with a crime are entitled to bail, except for those charged with a capital offense and offenses that result in a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of release upon conviction, when the proof is evident or the presumption great. The Legislature sets the standards for release for courts to follow in making decisions on whether to grant bail for these types of offenses.

I think I could vote for this as I think their is an out through the legislature if I read it right. Maybe someone can tell me if I am or not. Being it's in the Bill of Rights I think their needs to be some way to get bail. It can often take several years for a major trial to be concluded. I think that's along time to lock someone up without a conviction. If someone is locked up like that and then acquitted, what recourse do they have for losing their liberty durning the trial?

[ericire12]

The solvency is to hold judges accountable for the crimes that are commited by the scum bags while they are out on bail........ but why would we ever do something crazy like hold judges accountable.... thats just silly