Constitutional Amendments (Arguments For and Against) Abridged

Arguments For and Against Proposed Constitutional Amendment 1

2016

ARGUMENTS FOR

1. Allows judges to keep dangerous defendants off the streets.
   Under the current constitutional structure, judges do not have the authority to deny release to a defendant who is known to be a danger to the community or a flight risk. As a result, dangerous defendants who can afford whatever bail is set by the judge are released and might further threaten public safety. The proposed amendment would give judges the power to keep those who need to remain behind bars while they are awaiting trial away from the community.
2. Allows release of people who do not pose a threat.
   Many of the defendants incarcerated in New Mexico jails do not pose a danger to the community or are not a flight risk, but are held simply because they cannot afford bail. Often, they have no past criminal histories or are held pending trial for nonviolent offenses. Being held in jail has significant negative impacts on these defendants, who have not yet been found guilty of any crime, and on their families. Moreover, in states that have enacted reforms similar to the proposed amendment, there has been no corresponding negative impact on public safety.
3. Cost savings to counties.
   Holding large numbers of people pending trial imposes substantial costs on the counties, which house the vast majority of these defendants. Some counties have spent up to half of their budgets on jails and correctional officers. Many of the individuals held in county jails could be released without affecting public safety.
4. Protection of basic constitutional rights.
   It is a fundamental right since the founding of this nation that people are innocent until proven guilty, and thus the state should have to prove why a defendant should remain incarcerated before any finding of guilt.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

1. The present reliance on bail bonding helps ensure defendants appear in court.
   A bond helps ensure that a defendant will appear in court. A defendant released without a bond in a drug or property crime case has no financial incentive to appear in court.
2. Possible negative impact on the bail bonding industry.
   With fewer defendants required to post a bond, the proposed amendment would have a negative impact on the bail bonding industry, costing jobs in an already weak economy. The bail bonding industry provides a necessary service by helping to ensure that defendants appear in court.
3. Puts the public at greater risk.
   The proposed amendment, which will require judges to release certain defendants, will almost certainly increase the risk to the public. Defendants who post bonds under the current system frequently commit other crimes while awaiting trial. Making it easier for defendants to be released while awaiting trial will inevitably result in further danger to the public.