By Matt Rooney | The Save Jersey Blog
I’ve asked you to join me in voting NO on Ballot Question 2, Save Jerseyans, because it’s an expensive, ill-designed solution in search of a problem.
Question 1? As ever I leave you to your conscience but, for what it’s worth, it earned my vote. Here’s the short explanation:
There are plenty of reasons to view the grand bipartisan bail reform package with skepticism (click here for the concurrent resolution and here for the bill; the ballot question text for the a constitutional amendment is below the fold). For starters, it was bipartisan which means it was bought. Specifically, Question 2 purchased support for Question 1.
Continuing on… (2) shifting more responsibility onto the courts (and away from bail bondsmen) will cost money and (3) our courts are already underfunded. The larger question of (4) implementation was left to subsequent legislation. And then there’s the (4) liberty question: curtailing our right to pretrial detention, even when the circumstances are very limited, feels a little spooky.
In truth, however, those limited circumstances are already the guidepost in a number of other states and, by the way, for the federal courts pursuant to federal statute (the Bail Reform Act of 1984 backed by… Ronald Reagan). This amendment will eliminate the need for a cash bail to be posted for many of the nonviolent offenders. In narrow circumstances, judges will be able to deny pretrial release to those accused of certain first or second-degree crimes; we’re allowing the judge to take into account the threat to the general public or a flight risk.
A bigger threat to liberty than denied bail is (1) rampant violent crime and (2) indefinite detention for lack of a speedy prosecution/trial.
To say the system is “broken” may be cliche but it’s no understatement either. The New Jersey Association of Counties has reported that 12% of county inmates are nonviolent offenders unable to post a bail of $2,500 or less; their average stay is 314 days! At a cost of roughly $100 a day! Moreover, in 2012, the Drug Policy Alliance discovered that 75% of 15,000 New Jersey inmates were waiting to be tried (not serving sentences), most of whom are non-violent accused offenders. Moreover, 40% were there simply owing to the fact that they couldn’t afford to post bail.
The flip side of the current coin is that the court can’t factor the danger a suspect may pose to the community into its bail decision. The end result? According to the FBI, roughly 1 in 6 defendants out on bail waiting trial will get picked up for a fresh offense, 50% of which will be felony offenses.
Yes, I’m worried about the cost (I’ve heard estimates as high as $60 million in FY 2016) since this bill was rushed for political considerations, but I’m not worried enough to ignore my concern over the statistics set forth in the preceding paragraph, Save Jerseyans. THIS is the kind of stuff the government is SUPPOSED to spend money to manage but often fails to do so while other ‘priorities’ (like open space?) get all of the cash.
Something needs to be done and this is a relatively narrowly-tailored way to get the ball rolling. Join me in voting YES on 1.
BALLOT QUESTION 1:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A COURT TO ORDER PRETRIAL DETENTION OF A PERSON IN A CRIMINAL CASE
Do you approve amending the Constitution to allow a court to order pretrial detention of a person in a criminal case?
This would change the current constitutional right to bail. The change to the Constitution would mean that a court could order that a person remain in jail prior to trial, even without a chance for the person to post bail, in some situations.
The amendment also removes language in the Constitution about bail eligibility for death penalty cases. The death penalty no longer exists in New Jersey.
INTERPRETIVE STATEMENT
The Constitution currently requires a court to grant bail to a jailed person in a criminal case before trial. If the person posts bail, the person is released from jail pending trial. The amendment would give a court the option of ordering a person to remain in jail in some situations.
The court could order such detention based upon concerns that the person, if released: will not return to court; is a threat to the safety of another person or the community; or will obstruct or attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process.
The amendment authorizes the Legislature to pass laws concerning pretrial release and pretrial detention. The amendment would take effect on January 1, 2017 to allow any new laws to be enacted and their requirements to be established.
The amendment would also remove language in the Constitution about bail eligibility for death penalty cases. The death penalty no longer exists in New Jersey.
Yes
No.
No…too many opportunities for abuse of a loosely crafted bundle of half-developed ideas.
The last thing the NJ judiciary needs is any more discretion.
Denial of bail means treating the accused as if he’s guilty. It gives prosecutors more tools for forcing people to plead guilty even if they’re actually innocent. It shifts power to the government at the expense of the liberty of the individual.
I’m voting no. And if I could give up my votes for candidates and on question 2 in exchange for more no votes on question 1, I’d do it.
No #1 Innocent until proven guilty.
This amendment reflects the state of federal law brought into being by… Ronald Reagan!
Reagan wasn’t perfect. He supported amnesty, too.
No on both.
No on both.
No on both
No on both
always vote no on all of the public questions unless they involve abolishing certain branches of government.
Now that I slept on it I dont even like your reasoning. Should just make drugs legal and half of these people would not be sitting in prision in the first place. Feeding the prision for profit system.
Because giving government indiscriminate power to hold us indefinitely is a conservative thing. Sarcasm off….
@Jeremy That’s not at all what it does but I sincerely understand the apprehension here. In truth, all we’re doing is bringing NJ in line with federal law… a law championed by Reagan.
Reagan is no lover of individual liberties… Foregoing the 10th amendment for some uniform federal edict still doesn’t sound very conservative. I thought conservatives wanted to take power away from government and return it to the individual. Giving the courts and local law enforcement indiscriminate power to detain individuals is an awful idea. If you say you have nothing to worry about then your enemies have not been in power yet
If we want to get behind a constitutional amendment then why don’t we all make a joint effort to delink property taxes from public education funding. The New Jersey State Constitution reads that the state must provide an education for children but it never States where that money has to come from. If The ballot measure got approved it would effectively cut property taxes in half for all new Jersey residents overnight.
There’s nothing fiscally responsibly or conservative or constitutional about voting yes on 1. Sorry but go Save NY.
@Jeremy No offense, but I’ll side with the Gipper over you when it comes to what’s best for America.
@Peter That’s not very nice.
@Stephanie You’re reading something into the amendment that isn’t there. Period, end of sentence. It has the support of MPC and Jay Webber for God’s sake… this isn’t a trick question. lol.
Reagan…so the drug war is a good thing? insane federal spending? you know that law that mandated hospitals cover everyone regardless of ability to pay that started the beginning of skyrocketing insurance? yeah thats reagan also. reagans words of 64 and 76 are much much different than how he goverened. if the GOP so desperately needs a hero, i would suggest calvin coolidge, he actually shrunk government., reagan did no such thing in any area
No. I think for myself – I don’t care that MPC and Jay Weber support it. While I appreciate much of their work, they are still politicians and I rely on no politician’s word.
“CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A COURT TO ORDER PRETRIAL DETENTION OF A PERSON IN A CRIMINAL CASE”
– Interpretative Statement:
Constitutional Amendment to allow a court to deny freedom to a suspect in a criminal case before they receive their constitutionally protected trial before their peers.
.
The Supreme court already supports the right of the judiciary to order people detained that are a flight risk or represent a danger to the community. Thinking that raising the bail amount to prevent release just opens the door to having the bail reduced by an administrative action claiming “excess bail” as a hardship.
I don’t like the wording of the amendment. It transfers too much power to a judge to determine “flight risk” and “danger to the community”. As I see Christians, Veterans and people talking about the constitution being called “a risk to the community” I don’t want to empower any judge to use such a subjective standard to incarcerate individuals without a trial.
The right to post bail is another right that people have come to take for granted, but in a generation could disappear completely. I don’t have a crystal ball, but i did learn that rights once lost are rarely regained.
As I see more power being abused in the years since the Gipper, I can’t side with him on this one.
My vote is “NO”.
“CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A COURT TO ORDER PRETRIAL DETENTION OF A PERSON IN A CRIMINAL CASE”
– Interpretative Statement:
Constitutional Amendment to allow a court to deny freedom to a suspect in a criminal case before they receive their constitutionally protected trial before their peers.
.
The Supreme court already supports the right of the judiciary to order people detained that are a flight risk or represent a danger to the community. Thinking that raising the bail amount to prevent release just opens the door to having the bail reduced by an administrative action claiming “excess bail” as a hardship.
I don’t like the wording of the amendment. It transfers too much power to a judge to determine “flight risk” and “danger to the community”. As I see Christians, Veterans and people talking about the constitution being called “a risk to the community” I don’t want to empower any judge to use such a subjective standard to incarcerate individuals without a trial.
The right to post bail is another right that people have come to take for granted, but in a generation could disappear completely. I don’t have a crystal ball, but i did learn that rights once lost are rarely regained.
As I see more power being abused in the years since the Gipper, I can’t side with him on this one.
My vote is “NO”.
Currently this is NOT needed. We already have the mechanism to keep flight risks and high likelihood violent offenders in pre-trial by using uber-high bail amounts, and the “No-10%” option…….as well as psych evals, etc…..
This is nothing more then “feel-good” waste bill and needless tampering with the State Constitution.
Agree totally Matt Rooney. It’s like quarantining someone who may have Ebola but hasn’t been proved to have it. Government exists to protect us from real (as opposed to speculative or conjectural) harms. Dangerous people should be separated from the rest of us.
Those who fear a rogue prosecutor and/or a rogue judiciary need to answer how a piece of paper is going to save them from that tyranny.
No I don’t agree with Matt on question number two.
No
Yes on 1; no on 2.
Freeholders are running wild on open space $ by re-writing the grants.