OCR Text |
Show Arguments Against The right to reasonable bail goes back to our revolution. ' The cavalier manner in which the British arrested and confined our people aroused such resentment that when we finally got 4 free we said, "never again" and confirmed the right to bail in F the Eighth Amendment to our new constitution. State v. Boyle defines bail's purpose: "to assure the presence of the accused at trial." Not "criminal," "guilty party," or "prisoner" but "accused." Our courts still try to maintain what is often forgotten: the presumption of innocence. Louisiana recently tried to abridge the right to reasonable bail. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Duncan v. Louisiana, held that Louisiana's refusal to accept certain property pledged as bail was unlawful, "in bad faith and for purposes of harassment." Every year someone tries to erode our fundamental freedoms. Police want to abridge our right to bear arms. The giant insurance companies would deny us access to the courts through "tort reform." And now, in a topsy-turvy Alice-in-Wonderland scenario, some would have the punishment first and then trial for accused citizens, by denying bail. Read the proposed bill carefully. Consider Sec. 8(l)(a), where "substantial evidence" re-i re-i places "proof is evident or where the presumption strong." What is "substantial evidence?" Words can be manipulated to mean whatever anyone judge, dictator, general wants them to mean. As another odd character from Alice said before his celebrated fall, "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean no more and no less." Humpty-Dumpty articulates a court's power to invent meaning capriciously: guilty is innocent, jail before trial even while the accused is still presumed innocent. Why? This standard is not only vague, but is also less rigorous than "beyond a reasonable doubt." What is "substantial evidence?" Possession of a hunting weapon? Being a passenger in a vehicle carrying improperly tagged deer or untaxed jewelry? Also alarming is the prospect that one can be denied bail for any crime if the court also finds by "clear and convincing evidence that the person would constitute a substantial danger to any other person or to the community or is likely to flee the jurisdiction if released on bail." Adequately high bail already deters flight from the jurisdiction for most crimes. But should we all be at risk just to make it slightly more difficult for a suspect to flee? Should the possibility that the accused, when arrested, may have been in possession of a fishing knife, deer rifle, prescription pills, or other "evidence" of "destructive tendencies" toward others, be used as pretext to incarcerate in an overcrowded jail until trial, which may be next year or in ten years? And with Utah's financial resources dwindling along with our constitutional rights, can we really afford increased pretrial pre-trial detention? Don't let the state further erode your fundamental rights, and increase your tax burden. Vote AGAINST Proposition 1! R. Clayton Huntsman, Attorney 2 West St. George Boulevard Ancestor Square, Suite 31 St. George, Utah 84770 |