Republican Senate Moves to Change Hoosier's Right to Bail

 I wrote about this in Bail. Indiana Capital Chronicle reported in the past week Government & Politics Indiana Senate approves bail denial constitution change:

Proponents — some prosecutors and Republicans — contend that Senate Joint Resolution 1 would prevent repeat criminals from committing additional alleged offenses while out on bail. Opponents — mostly defenders, Democrats and civil rights advocates — say it’s rife with potential for abuse.

“There are actually 31 states, the District of Columbia and the federal system where defendants of certain crimes do not have an express right to bail. We are in the minority,” said author Sen. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, on the Senate floor Thursday.

The argument put forward in the first paragraph above was addressed in my earlier post. There are already remedies in place that should deter people from committing crimes while on bail. All this proposal will do is increase the number of people in jail, or lead to more jail building or suits for jail overcrowding. 

As for the being in the minority of states, are we not already in the lower ranks for the generosity of our childcare and maternal health and workmen's compensation payments? If we, the people of Indian, value our inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then we should not devalue those rights by succumbing to a hysterical cry to incarcerate more Hoosiers on a flimsy idea of substantiality.

One Republican got this idea to no avail:

Several Republicans defected. The most vocal GOP opponent was Sen. Sue Glick, R-LaGrange, who has served as both a prosecuting attorney and a public defender.

Glick said people often challenged her throughout her legal career for defending people “who are guilty,” but pushed back, saying that public defenders “serve to defend the rule of law.”

“And the rule of law,” Glick said, “is the presumption that everyone who comes before judgment is presumed to be innocent as they stand in the docks.”

Glick criticized SJR 1 as being too vague in terms of what constitutes a “substantial” risk, and a “risk” of what. She argued that Indiana’s hundreds of judges could interpret the proposal’s language differently, and that the General Assembly should build in controls.

We cannot rely on the judges not to favor incarceration when failure to divine the future dangerousness of a defendant will mean the cost of their jobs. We cannot rely on the grandstanding members of the Indiana General Assembly. What, the people, must do is vote against this proposal when it comes before us.

sch 1/29