To the Editor: This publication recently stated (Jan. 10 issue) that proponents of bail reform should “have their heads examined” for not having given judges the ability to automatically incarcerate out of public-safety concerns.
Much has been said about bail-reform proponents stripping away discretion from judges. What’s always left out of this argument is that before the bail reform, the only factor legally available for a judge’s consideration was flight risk, not public safety. It has been this way since 1971, nearly 50 years.
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you have an active digital subscription, then you already have an account here. Just reset your password, if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
If you are a current print-only subscriber, and want access to our website,click here to view your options for changing you subscription level.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
