TIME.
I APPRECIATE IT.
>> OPPONENTS OF THE AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THE BAIL SYSTEM IN
WISCONSIN WORRY IT'LL LEAD TO
MANY MORE PEOPLE HELD IN JAIL
PRIOR TO TRIAL.
PEOPLE PRESUMED INNOCENT AND DO
NOT, IN FACT, POSED A SAFETY
RISK.
AMONG THEM PUBLIC STATE DEFENDER
KELLI THOMPSON.
SHE JOINS US NOW.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING
HERE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
HAVING ME.
>> WHY WILL THIS LEAD TO MANY
MORE JAILED PRETRIAL?
>> IT LIKELY WILL LEAD TO
ADDITIONAL PEOPLE HELD PRETRIAL
BECAUSE CASH BAIL DOES NOT
EQUATE TO RISK.
YOU AND MYSELF COULD BE CHARGED
WITH THE SAME CRIME AND PROVIDED
A CASH BAIL BY THE COURT OR BY
THE COMMISSIONER.
ONE CAN PAY.
ONE CANNOT PAY.
AND THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY
MEAN THAT THE PERSON THAT CAN
PAY IS LESS RISKY.
WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS IN OUR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, IN OUR
JAILS RIGHT NOW, PRESUMED
INNOCENT.
AND THEY JUST DON'T HAVE THE
ABILITY TO PAY THE CASH BAIL
THAT'S BEEN SET IN THEIR
PARTICULAR CASE.
>> IN TERMS OF THE AMENDMENT,
WHY IS IT WRONG TO CONSIDER THE
SERIOUSNESS OF THE CRIME, PAST
CRIMINAL HISTORY, AND PROTECTION
OF THE COMMUNITY WHEN SETTING
BAIL?
>> IT IS NOT THAT IT'S WRONG,
IT'S JUST ARE WE LOOKING AT THE
CORRECT FACTORS THAT WE SHOULD
BE TO KEEP OUR COMMUNITY SAFE.
AND STILL STAY TRUE TO WHAT I
THINK IS EXTRAORDINARILY
IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US.
THAT PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
AND OUR LIBERTY INTEREST.
WE TAKE AWAY SOMEONE'S LIBERTY
INTEREST WHEN WE HOLD THEM IN
JAIL PRESUMED INNOCENT.
PART OF WHAT HAPPENS, WHEN WE
KEEP SOMEONE IN CUSTODY, PRIOR
TO CONVICTION IN A CASE, WE'RE
TAKING AWAY THEIR HOUSING
SECURITY, TAKING AWAY THEIR
CHILDREN, THEIR ABILITY TO WORK
AND BE EMPLOYED AND DOING IT
AGAIN ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT
THEY HAVE COMMITTEED A CRIME.
THEY'RE STILL JUST CHARGED.
AND AGAIN THE PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE IS TO VERY CRITICAL.
WHAT WE SEE DAILY, THAT A NUMBER
OF INDIVIDUALS ARE SITTING TOO
POOR TO PAY A CASH BAIL, EVEN
SOMETIMES A LOW CASH BAIL, AND
SO THEY SIT WAITING FOR THEIR
DAY IN COURT.
WE KNOW NATIONALLY -- THIS IS
NOT A NEW DISCUSSION.
IN FACT, WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS
WITH OTHER LEGISLATE TOWERS,
WITH SENATORS, WITH
REPRESENTATIVES, SENATOR VAN
WANGGAARD.
AND WE HAVE WORKED WITH STATES
AND COUNTIES AND CASH BAIL IS
NOT THE OTHER ONES DIRECTIONS
THEY'RE GOING OR EXPANDING CASH
BAIL.
>> WOULD LIKE TO DO AWAY WITH
CASH BAIL ALL TOGETHER IN.
>> I WOULD.
BUT I KNOW THAT'S NOT WHAT IS
GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND THAT'S NOT WHAT I AM ASKING
FOR.
I KNOW THAT CASH BAIL DOES PLAY
A ROLE NAP PEOPLE FEEL THAT DOES
HOLD BASICALLY A STICK OR A
CARROT TO GET PEOPLE TO COME
BACK TO COURT.
BUT IT SHOULD BE USED IN SUCH
LIMITED SITUATIONS.
I'M GOING BACK TO MOST PEOPLE
SHOULD BE OUT OF CUSTODY.
THEY'RE PRESUMED INNOCENT.
A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS MAY NEED
SOMETHING MORE TO CONTINUE THEM
IN THE COMMUNITY.
AND THAT CAN BE NO CONTACT
ORDER.
NO VIOLENT CONTACT ORDER.
THAT COULD BE SOME TIME OF
SERVICES.
THAT COULD BE ELECTRONIC
MONITORING.
AND THEN THERE'S A GROUP OF
INDIVIDUALS THAT WE SAY, HEY,
YOU NEED SOMETHING MORE, AND
THAT COULD BE THE CASH BAIL
SYSTEM WE USE.
BUT, AGAIN, CASH BAIL DOES NOT
EQUATE TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
WHEN WE GO BEFORE A COMMISSIONER
AND A JUDGE TO MAKE A
DETERMINATION ON BAIL, WE HAVE
SOME INFORMATION BUT THE
HEARINGS GO VERY, VERY QUICKLY,
AND WE DON'T HAVE A LOT LOT OF
INFORMATION OFTEN ON THESE
INDIVIDUALS.
AND WE'RE SAYING, HOW ESPECIALLY
TO POOR PEOPLE YOU ARE MORE
RISKY.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE
SYSTEM WE SHOULD BE STRIVING TO
HAVE IN WISCONSIN.
>> THERE ARE OTHER MODELS OF
WHICH YOU SPOKE THAT PEOPLE ARE
RESEARCHESES THE FEDERAL MODEL
OF DETENTION, HOW IS THAT BETTER
PEOPLE THINK THAN WHAT WE ARE
LOOKING AT?
>> IT DOESN'T PUT TWO PEOPLE
SIMILAR SITUATED, ONE BEING POOR
THOUGH, IN CUSTODY WHILE SOMEONE
ELSE WHO CAN POST THE CASH BAIL
OUT OF CUSTODY.
PREVENTIVE DETENTION IS USED IN
A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF CASES.
AND IT DOES, WHAT I THINK
INDIVIDUALS ARE LOOKING AT, WE
HAVE PERHAPS A VERY HIGH RISK
GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS CHARGED
WITH VERY SERIOUS CASES, AND A
COMMISSIONER OR A JUDGE CAN
DETERMINE THAT THERE IS -- YOU
SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED.
AGAIN IT'S A VERY LIMITED NUMBER
OF CASES.
BUT THEY DO HAVE THAT ABILITY.
WITH A LOT OF PARAMETERS.
WE HAVE TO RESPECT DUE PROCESS
AND MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE CAN
HAVE HEARINGS AND THAT THERE
COULD BE MOTIONS TO GO BEFORE
JUDGES AND SAY, HEY, WE HAVE NEW
INFORMATION THAT THIS PERSON
SHOULD BE RELEASED.
BUT THE FEDERAL SYSTEM DOES
THAT.
A NUMBER OF STATES DO THAT.
WE HAVE IT IN OUR CONSTITUTION,
IT'S UNWORKABLE.
BUT IS THAT WHERE WE SHOULD
FOCUS SOME OF OUR ATTENTION IF
PRIMARY SAFETY IS OF CONCERN TO
SOME INDIVIDUALS.
AND AGAIN HERE WE'RE BY
EXPANDING THE CASH BAIL, BY
ULTIMATELY KEEPING THOSE WHO
CAN'T AFFORD IN CUSTODY, AND OUT
OF THE COMMUNITIES AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY AWAY FROM THEIR
FAMILIES.
>> WE LEAVE IT THERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, KELLI
THOMPSON, AND THANKS FOR YOUR
TIME.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>> THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
WOULD ALLOW JUDGES TO DENY BAIL