Currently, under the Constitution of the State of Indiana, a person charged with murder or treason is not entitled to be released on bail if the proof is evident or the presumption strong. Shall the Constitution of the State of Indiana be amended to provide that a person charged with an offense other than murder or treason is not entitled to bail if: (1) the proof is evident or the presumption strong; and (2) the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably protect the safety of any other person or the community. (This question concerns Article 1, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana.)
This is a public question on our ballot. 1st I have a problem with "presumption strong" and since this is a question about bail, this is before trial. 2nd it seems that the way this is worded, they are simply trying to apply the original rule to anything (an offense other than murder or treason) which would include anything that the locality would want. Anyway, 1) I am not a lawyer 2) I'm on record for being PISSED about the wording on these question that seem to be just like having an election in russia! Anyway... Thoughts? I need input.
Tantrums don't change outcomes
Losing is part of life. Sometimes the answer is simply NO.
@single_king
Id vote no. Judges should have the authority to deny, grant, or conditionally grant bail based upon individual circumstances.
Asking for a friend, but could you give us the pros and cons for both votes on this in a dumbed down manner? Also, hypothetically speaking, how should a lowly street urchin vote on this?
IANAL
Vote no.
If the OP is the correct wording, it’s pure snd unadulterated bullshit.
“(1) the proof is evident or the presumption strong; and”
“(2) the state proves by clear and convincing evidence”
“Proof” and “proves” are each impossible. If the defense attorney disagrees with the proof, it wasn’t proven. Far too ambiguous and subjective.
The purpose of this is to fill jails. Leave it up to the judge.
More simply stated, who adjudicates said proof, the judge? If so, what’s the point? Either way, the judge decides.
I suppose you could argue this puts the onus on the judge if the person gets bail and harms society.
Seems like whoever wrote that word salad is trying to confuse people into a vote
Sounds like it would be a really low bar to prevent bail
Seems like it would require more taxes to replace money that isn't being raised through bail anymore...and cause overcrowding in jails.
@single_king
Id vote no. Judges should have the authority to deny, grant, or conditionally grant bail based upon individual circumstances.
Exactly. This kind of nonsense gives the law & order crowd wood, but all it does is lead to the same miscarriages of justice as do three strikes laws and mandatory minimum sentencing.
Seems like whoever wrote that word salad is trying to confuse people into a vote
This is the part that really pisses me off about these things. Add that unless you do your due diligence, and we know most people DON'T, you get to look over this puke in the booth for the first time. Pisses me off!
Tantrums don't change outcomes
Losing is part of life. Sometimes the answer is simply NO.
@single_king You may want to change your mind, I am 100% in agreement.
@hurryinghoosiers this is the problem with dems. They’re just all feels and zero knowledge. AOC. And morons like you. Why are you so stupid? “Require more taxes to replace money from bail.” Good lord this is why we hate you Dems. You want to fck with the country while not knowing ANYTHING about how things work. Bail is a security deposit to ensure the defendant shows for court. At the end of the case the defendant gets it back or assigns it to the lawyer in lieu of attnys fees. The court system doesn’t keep it. Jesus man. There is nothing dumber than a modern Dem. Nothing.
@single_king You may want to change your mind, I am 100% in agreement.
And I'm in agreement with COH. The End is Nigh.
@co-hoosier then shouldn't you vote yes?
Currently bail is constitutionally guaranteed (outside of murder or treason). As I read it, a judge cannot deny bail for any other charge.
IANAL
Vote no.
If the OP is the correct wording, it’s pure snd unadulterated bullshit.
“(1) the proof is evident or the presumption strong; and”
“(2) the state proves by clear and convincing evidence”
“Proof” and “proves” are each impossible. If the defense attorney disagrees with the proof, it wasn’t proven. Far too ambiguous and subjective.
The purpose of this is to fill jails. Leave it up to the judge.
If you want to leave it to the judge, seems like you would vote yes.