% IN ADDITION TO THE NAMES OF THE
% CANDIDATES FOR STATE SUPREME
% COURT, WISCONSIN VOTERS WILL SEE
% SOMETHING ELSE ON THEIR BALLOT
% TUESDAY.
% WHO QUESTIONS ASKING VOTERS TO
% AMEND THE STATE'S CONSTITUTION.
% BOTH OF THESE QUESTIONS HAVE TO
% DO WITH THE STATE'S CASH BAIL
% SYSTEM.
% QUESTION ONE READS, CONDITIONS
% OF RELEASE BEFORE CONVICTION.
% SHALL THE CONSTITUTION BE
% AMENDED TO ALLOW A COURT TO
% IMPOSE ON AN ACCUSED PERSON
% BEING RELEASED BEFORE CONVICTION
% CONDITIONS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO
% PROTECT THE COMMUNITY FROM
% SERIOUS HARM.
% AND QUESTION TWO READS, CASH
% BAIL BEFORE CONVICTION.
% SHALL THE CONSTITUTION BE
% AMENDED TO ALLOW A COURT TO
% IMPOSE CASH BAIL ON A PERSON
% ACCUSED OF A VIOLENT CRIME BASED
% ON THE TOTALITY OF THE
% CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING THE
% ACCUSED PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS FOR
% A VIOLENT CRIME, THE PROBABILITY
% THAT THE ACCUSED WILL FAIL TO
% APPEAR, THE NEED TO PROTECT THE
% COMMUNITY FROM SERIOUS HARM AND
% PREVENT WITNESS INTIMIDATION AND
% POTENTIALLY AFFIRMATIVE
% DEFENSES.
% THAT'S A LOT OF WORDS AND
% PROVING CONFUSING TO EVEN THE
% HIGHEST INFORMATION VOTERS.
% HERE FOR HELP YOU TO BE LAW
% SCHOOL PROFESSOR CECELIA
% KLINGELE.%THANK YOU FOR BEIN
G WITH US.% >> MY PLEASURE.
% >> IT WOULD ALLOW JUDGES TO
% IMPOSE CONDITIONS OF RELEASE.
% WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF THAT?
% >> JUDGES ALREADY CAN IMPOSE
% CONDITIONS OF RELEASE IN MOST
% CASES AND THOSE CONDITIONS CAN
% BE THINGS LIKE CURFEWS, THEY CAN
% BE REQUIREMENTS EVEN IN SOME
% CASES THAT PEOPLE SUBJECT
% THEMSELVES TO ELECTRONIC
% MONITORING.%IT CAN BE RESTRI
CTIONS ON THE
% CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL.
% A BROAD ARRAY OF CONDITIONS
% REALLY LIMITED TO THE JUDGE'S
% DISCRETION, BUT CURRENTLY THEY
% HAVE TO BE CONDITIONS THAT ARE
% TIED CLOSELY TO THE RISK THAT
% SOMEONE WILL CAUSE SERIOUS
% BODILY HARM TO SOMEONE WILL
% INTIMIDATE WITNESSES OR WILL NOT
% SHOW UP IN COURT.
% >> AND SO, AGAIN, THIS IS
% DIFFERENT HOW?
% >> FROM WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
% SO THE PROPOSAL WOULD BROADEN
% THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH
% JUDGES WERE ABLE TO IMPOSE
% CONDITIONS OF PEOPLE.
% DURING THAT TIME BETWEEN WHEN
% THEY ARE CHARGED WITH A CRIME
% AND WHEN THEY'RE CONVICTED OF A
% CRIME.%THIS IS REALLY IMPORTA
NT THAT WE
% KEEP REMEMBERING THAT DURING
% THAT TIME, UNDER OUR LAW, PEOPLE
% ARE PRESUMED INNOCENT.
% AND SO THE LAW IS REALLY
% NERVOUS, APPROPRIATELY, BUT
% IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS THAT COULD
% FEEL PUNITIVE ON PEOPLE WHO
% HAVEN'T YET BEEN CONVICTED OF
% DOING ANYTHING WRONG.
% AND SO WHAT THE LAW CHANGE WOULD
% DO IS ENABLE JUDGES TO IMPOSE
% CONDITIONS IN A BROADER ARRAY OF
% CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING NOT
% JUST WHEN SOMEONE POSES A RISK
% OF SERIOUS BODILY HARM, BUT OF
% SERIOUS HARM WHICH THE
% LEGISLATURE HAS SEPARATELY
% DEFINED IN STATUTES THAT
% RECENTLY PASSED AND WOULD TAKE
% EFFECT FOR THIS AMENDMENT TO BE
% APPROVED.%THAT WOULD EFFECTI
VELY COVER ANY
% SITUATION WHERE ANYONE CAUSED
% ANY KIND OF HARM TO PROPERTY, TO
% A PERSON, OR EVEN TO THE
% EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING OF ANOTHER.
% >> AND THAT IS BROAD.
% LET'S LOOK AT THE SECOND
% QUESTION.
% IT'S ABOUT SETTING CASH BAIL
% BASED ON THINGS LIKE PAST
% CRIMINAL HISTORY, PROTECTING THE
% COMMUNITY FROM SERIOUS HARM AND
% AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.
% NOW, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, WHAT
% IS THAT?
% >> SO AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IS
% A LEGAL TERM THAT WE USE TO
% DESCRIBE WHEN SOMEONE ENGAGES IN
% CONDUCT THAT, UNDER THE LAW,
% WOULD ORDINARILY BE ILLEGAL, BUT
% THE PERSON IS ABLE TO CLAIM AND
% PROVE THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES
% WERE SUCH THAT IT WASN'T ILLEGAL
% IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE.
% THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THIS IS
% SELF-DEFENSE.% SO ORDINARIL
Y YOU DON'T GET TO
% HIT SOMEONE OR HURT SOMEONE, BUT
% IF YOU'RE ACTING IN
% SELF-DEFENSE, THEN IT'S NOT
% ILLEGAL.
% >> DOES THIS SEEM REASONABLE OR
% UNREASONABLE TO CONSIDER THINGS
% LIKE PAST CONVICTIONS?
% >> WELL, I THINK WE HAVE TO SORT
% OF STOP AND ASK WHAT IT IS THAT
% WE'RE DOING.
% SO, AGAIN, UNDER EXISTING LAW,
% JUDGES ALREADY CAN IMPOSE
% CONDITIONS ON PEOPLE THAT ARE
% DESIGNED TO ADVANCE LEGITIMATE
% CONSIDERATIONS.
% THE QUESTION NOW IN QUESTION TWO
% IS WHEN WE GET TO ASK PEOPLE TO
% PAY MONEY TO POST CASH BOND IN
% ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SECURE
% RELEASE.
% >> WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF
% THESE IF THEY PASS FOR COURTS?
% >> SO THE BIGGEST CHANGE HAS TO
% DO WITH CASH BOND.
% UNDER OUR CURRENT LAW, YOU ARE
% ONLY ALLOWED AS A COURT TO ASK
% SOMEONE TO POST MONEY TO BE
% RELEASED DURING THAT PERIOD
% BEFORE CONVICTION.
% IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS IF THE
% PERSON ISN'T GOING TO SHOW UP TO
% COURT, THE IDEA IS WE'RE ASKING
% YOU TO PAY MONEY AS AN INCENTIVE
% BECAUSE YOU FORFEIT IT IF YOU
% DON'T SHOW UP.
% NOW, UNDER THE CHANGE, WE WOULD
% BE ABLE TO ASK YOU TO GIVE MONEY
% IN A MUCH BROADER ARRAY OF
% SITUATIONS WHERE WE ACTUALLY
% DON'T HAVE NECESSARILY A CONCERN
% THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SHOW UP
% IN COURT BUT WE'RE JUST -- WE
% DON'T LIKE THE KIND OF CRIME
% THAT YOU ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE
% COMMITTED.
% THAT'S A VERY DIFFERENT WAY TO
% USE CASH THAN WE HAVE BEEN USING
% IT IN THE PAST.
% >> DOES IT SEEM AS THOUGH CASH
% BAILS WILL GO HIGHER AND PEOPLE
% WILL SIT IN JAIL LONGER?
% >> THAT IS CERTAINLY A
% POSSIBILITY.
% EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S
% LIKELY TO BE IMPOSED MORE
% FREQUENTLY.%AND THE REASON W
HY THAT MIGHT BE
% A PROBLEM FOR US IS THAT UNDER
% THE LAW, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO
% USE CASH TO KEEP PEOPLE
% DETAINED.%CASH BOND IS ALWAY
S SUPPOSED TO
% BE JUST A WAY OF MAKING SURE
% PEOPLE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE
% RULES TO DECIDE IF THEY ACTUALLY
% ARE GUILTY OR NOT.
% THE IDEA ISN'T IF YOU HAVE
% MONEY, YOU GET TO BE OUT PENDING
% RELEASE AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE
% MONEY, YOU'RE STUCK, AND SO WE
% SHOULD SET HIGH BONDS THAT
% PEOPLE CAN'T MEET.
% IN FACT, UNDER EXISTING LAW,
% U.S. AND STATE LAW, YOU HAVE TO
% SET REASONABLE BONDS IN AMOUNTS
% THAT PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO BE
% ABLE TO PAY, PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED
% TO BE OUT PENDING RELEASE, AND
% WE USE CONDITIONS TO KEEP
% EVERYONE SAFE, NOT MONEY, WHICH
% HAS DISPARATE EFFECTS ON
% DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
% >> WITH LESS THAN HALF A MINUTE
% LEFT, WHAT IS YOUR GUIDANCE TO
% VOTERS WHEN THEY LOOK AT THESE.
% >> SPEND TIME THINKING ABOUT
% WHAT GOOD IS BEING DONE BY
% IMPOSING CASH IN MORE CASES.
% IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER WE
% ALREADY HAVE A STATUTE IN THE
% STATE THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE
% CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES OF
% VIOLENCE TO BE ABLE TO BE
% DETAINED WITHOUT RELEASE UNDER
% ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN WE HAVE
% SERIOUS ENOUGH SAFETY
% CONVERSATIONS.%>> ALL RIGHT.
% PROFESSOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
% WE APPRECIATE IT.
% >> MY PLEASURE.
% THANK YOU.
% >> WISCONSIN VOTERS WILL SEE ONE
% MORE QUESTION ON THE BALLOT, BUT
% IT WILL HAVE NO POLICY EFFECT AS
% IT IS A NON-BINDING REFERENDUM.
% T READS SHALL ABLE-BODIED
% CHILDLESS ADULTS BE REQUIRED TO
% LOOK FOR WORK IN ORDER TO
% RECEIVE TAXPAYER FUNDED WELFARE
% BENEFITS.
% REPUBLICANS SAY THEY ADDED THIS
% QUESTION TO THE BALLOT AS A WAY
% OF GAGING PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT
% THE ISSUE, WHILE CANDIDATES SAY
% BECAUSE THERE ARE ALREADY WORK
% OR TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR
% BENEFITS, IT IS INTENDED TO
% BOOST TURN-OUT AMONG