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 BEING 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 RESTRICTIONS 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 IMPORTANT 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 EFFECTIVELY 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 ORDINARILY 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 WHY 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 ALWAYS 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