Franklin County judge: Issue 1 will restore 'common-sense' notion public safety matters

Dan Hawkins is a Franklin County Common Pleas Court judge. He previously served as judge of the Franklin County Environmental Court and as director of the Special Victims Unit for the Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office.

During my 20-plus years working in Ohio’s trial courts — both as a prosecutor and a judge — I have dealt with literally thousands of cases involving a wide range of criminal activity.

Throughout this time, the issue of setting bail in a case was never a particularly difficult or controversial concept to grasp. A person arrested for a criminal offense goes before a trial court judge who looks at a number of different factors including the background of the accused, his or her criminal history, and the nature and circumstances of the crime charged. The judge uses this information to set bail on the case. It was pretty straightforward, really.

More:The tool Ohio prosecutors, judges must use — for now — to get dangerous suspects detained

Straightforward, that is, until a divided Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision in DuBose v. McGuffey. The DuBose case involved a man charged with committing murder with a gun during an armed robbery and then fleeing the state to avoid apprehension. In a 4-3 decision, the Court ruled that moving forward, local judges could not consider the safety of the public when setting the amount of bail for accused criminals.

This decision sent shockwaves throughout the criminal justice system. Judges in Ohio have always considered public safety when setting bail.

Nevertheless, the decision of these four justices is now the law in Ohio and my colleagues and I who preside over the state’s trial courts are adapting to this new reality.

More:Judges' attack on 'law-and-order crowd' untethered from grim reality of crime, judge says

The issue is now in the hands of voters. Issue 1 is a constitutional amendment that will effectively overrule the DuBose decision and restore the common-sense notion that judges should consider public safety when setting the amount of bail in a case. This proposed amendment is nothing radical – it simply takes us back to where we were before.

Critics of Issue 1 and our bail system argue two primary points.

First, they claim that our system is unfair and unnecessarily incarcerates the poor while allowing the rich to go free.

In reality, the vast majority of criminal defendants are released on their own recognizance, that is, they simply sign a piece of paper promising to return for their court date. Those who are ordered to post bail and are unable to do so can retain the services of a bondsman who will cover the amount for them.

More:'Liberty should not depend on a person’s wealth.' Sham issue not about safety | Attorney

More:How to submit guest opinion columns to the Columbus Dispatch

Defendants who remain in jail regularly have their bail amounts re-examined while their cases are pending, and the amount can be lowered or eliminated altogether as additional information is presented to the court. Judges work extremely hard to ensure that the bail amounts they set are appropriate under the circumstances and consistent with the law and our Constitution. It is wrong to think that judges keep people in jail for simply being poor.

Critics of Issue 1 also argue that judges already have the authority to deny bail entirely to those defendants determined to be a threat to public safety. However, this is only true for certain crimes.

The law does not permit judges to deny bail for crimes such as domestic violence, abduction, sexual battery, or gross sexual imposition of a child.  If a man is charged with beating his wife and threatening her life, if she cooperates with the prosecution, the law does not permit me to deny bail, and DuBose prevents me from considering the woman’s safety when setting the amount of bail.

More:Attorney: Bail reform bills would put domestic violence victims in danger

The Ohio Supreme Court has made it clear: when I set a bail amount, I am not allowed to ask, “What makes sense in order to keep the public safe?”

A vote for Issue 1 will put an end to this and restore a judge’s ability to consider public safety in making these critical decisions.

Dan Hawkins is a Franklin County Common Pleas Court judge. He previously served as judge of the Franklin County Environmental Court and as director of the Special Victims Unit for the Franklin County Prosecutor’s Office.

This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Judge Dan Hawkins: Issue 1 is about public safety