Indiana Bail Change - Not A Reform, Another GOP Attack On Freedom

 Yes, the proposed change to Indiana's Bill of Rights is not yet on the ballot.  However, does anyone see the Republicans not keeping control of our General Assembly? Does anyone see the Republicans suddenly seeing this as an attack on our freedoms? Or that Republicans might actually live up to their claim of being conservative?

I have written about this before because I see it as unneeded, as a diminishment of our liberties as Hoosiers.

 The Indiana Capital Chronicle reprints a piece for Mike Cunningham wrote for the Indiana Bar's Res Gestae, Indiana’s dwindling right to bail and the damaging effect on the presumption of innocence, hits several points I have and some I have not:

While SJR-1 is well-intended, it will have damaging effects on the presumption of innocence, individual liberty, and public safety. 

SJR-1 would establish an arbitrary and capricious bail scheme, because the requirement that bail should be denied when a person “poses a substantial risk to the public” is vague and casts too wide a net. Substantial risk of what? Danger, emotional distress, communicable disease, political beliefs…? 

Currently, the provision requires no nexus between the “substantial risk” posed and the alleged offense. And, low level offenses might not be bailable. 

For example, if a person commits misdemeanor theft, but the defendant is a gun-collecting NRA member, a court may find the person poses a substantial risk to the public and must deny bail. 

Proposals like SJR-1 would also negatively impact folks who wish to protest government action or speak their mind at a school board meeting. An “unruly” parent could be charged with disorderly conduct, and because of their particular beliefs, might “pose a substantial risk to the public.” They could be held without bail. 

I had not thought through those problems. One claim seen by proponents was to make us more like the federal system. Why that is a virtue remains unknown to me, but under the federal system, the above scenarios have happened - nonviolent offenders incarcerated without bail, what looks like release upon one's recognizance is actually incarceration, 

This I need see:

Ultimately, such a proposal would be tough on taxpayers as it would inevitably require greater resources to house people pretrial, rather than release them with sufficient sureties prior to trial. 

 ###

While proponents of a bail amendment claim judges need more discretion to consider public safety and the dangerousness of the accused, when setting bail, judges already have it. In fact, despite proposals like SJR-1, Indiana already has a vibrant bail scheme that properly protects the presumption of innocence and public safety.

For example, Indiana law already allows judges to consider public safety, and they may impose restrictions to “assure the public’s safety,” including money bail, restriction on movements and associations, no-contact orders, or requiring pretrial supervision and monitoring. Judges also have discretion to “impose any other reasonable restrictions designed to assure the…physical safety of another person or the community.”

Indiana law also provides for stricter bail conditions for sexually violent predators and violent offenses. 

Moreover, if a person is released on bail but then goes on to commit a new crime while on pre-trial release, judges can revoke bail and make them sit behind bars until their case is resolved. 

Yes, it sounds good to protect the public. What goes unmentioned is that the public is already protected. Who benefits from this proposed change in our rights as Indiana citizens? Not us citizens.

sch 5/17