What would Tennessee’s Amendment 1 mean for you?
Probably not much, unless of course you're someone who worries about your property taxes going up or doesn't like the idea of innocent people being held in jail with no chance of bail or release. That is when this debate stops being an abstract question about the state Constitution and becomes a very real question about taxpaying citizens, families and the courts.
Look beyond the headline crimes
Amendment 1 would expand the offenses for which judges could deny bail before trial. The public discussion has understandably focused on the most horrific crimes: terrorism, murder and child rape. Few people would argue that someone who poses a serious danger to the public should simply be released. But those examples don't tell the whole
story.
The actual constitutional language is broader than the crimes that naturally dominate the public discussion. It includes the 85%-of-sentence category, potentially bringing more defendants within the no-bail framework than voters might assume from the examples being emphasized. That distinction matters because a person does not have to be convicted to lose his or her freedom.
The taxpayer cost of pretrial detention
Denying bail happens before trial, when the accused is still presumed innocent. For most people, that may sound like a legal technicality, but it becomes a hard-hitting financial consequence when the bill comes due – literally. A person held in jail before trial still requires a jail bed, food, medical care, security and staff. Those costs exist whether or not the person is ultimately convicted.
If Amendment 1 results in more people being held without bail, Tennesseans will bear the cost of that additional incarceration (which could be as high as $140 per day per person) in the form of higher property taxes. This is not an abstraction. It is reality.
Cost should never be the deciding factor when someone genuinely threatens public safety. But taxpayers deserve to know what they are being asked to fund, particularly when a constitutional amendment could permanently change the rules governing pretrial detention.
Why limit judicial discretion?
Meanwhile, there is the very real human element of the proposed amendment. What if the person accused were your son or daughter? Your spouse, brother or sister? What if the accusation were serious, but the facts were disputed? What if that person had a job, a family and strong ties to the community?
Under the current system, judges can consider the circumstances of each case. They can decide whether someone should remain in custody, be released or be released with conditions designed to protect the public and ensure that the defendant returns to court. Judges already have discretion.
That raises a basic question for voters: Why put a broader category of defendants into a constitutional no-bail framework rather than allow judges to make individualized decisions based on the actual circumstances of each case?
Circumstances matter in every case
And public safety is not the only consideration. Not every defendant presents the same risk. A judge can consider the seriousness of the allegations, the defendant's circumstances, ties to the community, likelihood of appearing in court and potential danger to others. Where appropriate, a judge can impose conditions of release. That individualized process exists for a reason: circumstances matter.
There will certainly be cases in which detention before trial is necessary to protect the public. But there will also be cases in which conditions of release are sufficient. The question is whether we should narrow judges' discretion for a broader category of offenses and instead make no-bail treatment part of the Constitution.
A constitutional change with lasting consequences
If it passes, more people accused of crimes could spend time in jail while awaiting trial. Families could lose a parent, spouse or breadwinner. Taxpayers could face additional incarceration costs. Courts and jails could face additional burdens. And all of this can happen before a jury has determined whether the accused person is guilty.
Amendment 1 is not just about what happens to criminals. It is about what happens to taxpayers, families and the courts. And potentially, it is about what happens to someone you know who has been accused of a crime but has not yet been convicted. Look beyond the most frightening examples. Read what the amendment actually says.
The question isn't whether we want to protect the public. Of course we do. The question is whether Amendment 1 is the best way to do it and whether we are willing to put that choice into our Constitution.
Vincent Dixie, D-Nashville, represents Tennessee House District 54.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Protect the right to bail. Vote no on Amendment 1 | Opinion
