To the editor: The Los Angeles Instances’ article in regards to the latest California Supreme Courtroom choice limiting judges’ capacity to impose unreasonable bail takes the usual strategy of pro-police state propaganda (“Release of L.A. rabbi attack suspect ignites debate over bail after high court ruling,” Could 29). It begins by describing a really scary, politically charged crime. Then, with out giving particulars of the nuance of the bail listening to, blames the latest choice for requiring the accused individual’s launch. The reader is left with the impression that they’re not secure.
Lacking from the article is any rationalization of how judges can detain folks accused of felony crimes after holding a hearing that determines that they’re harmful if launched.
Not talked about within the article is the truth that for many years, judges have held folks accused of low-level offenses in jail to stress them to plead responsible — a systemic supply of wrongful convictions — and that about one-third of felony arrests are resolved and not using a conviction. An article on this Supreme Courtroom choice might have featured one of many hundreds of individuals all through the state who’re held in jail each day, shedding jobs and houses and unable to look after family members. All as a result of Dist. Atty. Brooke Jenkins desires to punish folks first, then determine if they’re responsible.
The Supreme Courtroom choice truly upholds constitutional rights and the essential precept that an individual is harmless except and till confirmed responsible. The truth that judges and prosecutors have systematically disregarded our rights prior to now doesn’t make the Supreme Courtroom choice mistaken or radical. Now, the query is whether or not the judges will obey the legislation, respect our rights and uphold a free society.
John Raphling, Santa Monica
