OPINION
Proposition 3 flips the American idea of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head. By amending the Texas constitution to deny bail pending trial to people charged with certain crimes, a person charged with those crimes will languish in jail for months leading up to a trial.
Let me be clear, I strongly support prison terms for people convicted of the crimes on the Proposition 3 list: murder, capital murder, certain aggravated assaults, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated sexual assault, indecency with a child, and human trafficking. But punishing people who are merely accused—not yet convicted—of these crimes defies due process and creates risks for all of us.
As Texas’ criminal justice system currently exists, judges can (and often do) deny bail to people charged with the crimes on the Proposition 3 list. Even more often, judges set a very high bail amount for those crimes. Judges already set or deny bail based on their assessment of the individual’s likelihood of appearing for future court dates and the risks to the community and victims.
It would be incredibly rare to find a case where a judge allowed a person charged with these crimes to be released from jail with no bond, or set a very low bond. Judges should be allowed to continue making these decisions based on the facts of each unique case rather than have their hands tied by this constitutional amendment.
Proponents will say that the proposed amendment language also requires the prosecutor to demonstrate either: (1) setting bail is insufficient to ensure the person continues to appear in court; or (2) setting bail is insufficient to ensure the safety of the community, victims, or law enforcement. This ignores the reality of the status quo: if a prosecutor demonstrates either of those points, judges already deny bail in most cases.
On the other hand, this constitutional amendment creates a significant risk of prosecutors trumping up charges to take that discretion away from the judges. If this amendment passes, a prosecutor could charge a person with “aggravated robbery” instead of a lesser robbery charge that is more appropriate, then meet the low bar of arguing bail is insufficient for one of the two reasons above. Then, instead of having discretion to set bail (including a very high amount of bail or denying bail), the judge is required to deny bail. The person must now spend several months (and sometimes more than a year) in jail awaiting trial.
While they’re in jail, they could (and often do) lose their job, their home, and even their family or friends—all before they’ve received their Sixth Amendment right to a trial. When trial finally comes, if the jury then finds the person not guilty, the person has no recourse. They lost irreplaceable time with their family and income from their job, will have difficulty finding future employment, likely have health problems due to the lack of quality food and medical care in jail, and experience untold other problems. They can’t get those months spent in jail back.
The fact that innocent people will suffer the irreversible consequences of being denied bail if this amendment passes is enough to make me vote NO on Proposition 3. I rest assured that the judges we elect will set or deny bail when appropriate after looking at the unique facts of each case to keep the community safe. This amendment won’t increase safety in our communities.
It will only empower the state to keep people locked up before they’ve received a fair trial. The presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle in America and in Texas, and we must protect the ideal of “innocent until proven guilty” by rejecting Proposition 3.
— Britta N. Todd, San Angelo
____Speak Your Mind!____
Have something to say?
Drop us a line at editor@conchoobserver.com
The Concho Observer welcomes correspondence and will gladly publish them in accordance with our submissions and comments guidelines. We reserve the right to edit letters for content and clarity.
