Texas Constitution talk:Article I, Section 11-d: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Texas Constitution talk:Article I, Section 11-d (edit)

Revision as of 10:15, October 22, 2025

4,297 bytes added ,  Wednesday at 10:15
→‎TLC: new section
mNo edit summary
Tag: Reverted
(→‎TLC: new section)
Tag: Reverted
Line 113: Line 113:
high-risk cases and reduce the risk of unnecessarily lengthy  
high-risk cases and reduce the risk of unnecessarily lengthy  
incarceration for lower-risk defendants.
incarceration for lower-risk defendants.
== TLC ==
Comments by Supporters:
• Establishing a procedure for judges to deny bail in cases
involving felonies such as murder, aggravated sexual assault,
and human trafficking would prevent high-risk offenders from
committing additional crimes while awaiting trial. Pretrial
releases on low bail or personal recognizance can allow
dangerous individuals to remain in the community, as high-risk
defendants who can afford bail may be released even if they
pose a significant threat to public safety.
• Since 2021, there have been at least 162 homicide cases filed in
Harris County against defendants awaiting trial for a previous
offense while free on bond at the time of the homicide.
• Limiting application of the amendment to only the most
serious offenses ensures that only the individuals who pose
the greatest risk are denied bail.
• Denial of bail is successfully utilized in similar circumstances in
the federal court system and in many other states.
• The proposed amendment provides a distinct threshold
for denying bail by requiring the state to demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that granting bail is insufficient
to reasonably prevent a person's wilful nonappearance in
court or demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that
granting bail is insufficient to reasonably ensure public safety.
This places a clear burden on the prosecution and conforms
with the burden of proof required for detaining a defendant
without bail under the federal Bail Reform Act of 1984, which
was found constitutional in United States v. Salerno.
• Defendants would have the right to be represented by counsel
at bail denial hearings, ensuring legal representation to
safeguard the defendant's rights during this critical stage of
the pretrial process.
• A defendant would retain the right to appeal a judge's decision
regarding bail.
• Under the current system, pretrial release is effectively denied
by means of bail being set so high that a defendant cannot
possibly make it. The proposed amendment provides a more
honest way of accomplishing this.
Comments by Opponents:
• The proposed amendment would lead to longer pretrial
detentions for individuals who have yet to be convicted
of a crime, increasing the financial and personal burdens
of detention on these defendants and undermining the
presumption of innocence.
• The proposed amendment could be ineffective at addressing
its stated goal of increasing public safety, as high pretrial
incarceration rates have been shown to be associated
with increased recidivism, difficulty reintegrating into the
community, and poorer long-term outcomes for defendants.
• The proposed amendment could exacerbate existing racial
disparities in the state's criminal justice system.
• Texas judges already have the discretion to effectively deny
bail to potentially dangerous individuals by setting cash bonds
at amounts that these defendants cannot pay.
• Texas consistently ranks among the states with the highest
pretrial detention rates, suggesting that the current system
already provides for substantial pretrial detention.
• Increasing reliance on pretrial detention could exacerbate
overcrowding in county jails, which are often understaffed and
struggling with limited resources, potentially leading to higher
taxpayer costs without commensurate public safety benefits.
• Failing to set a specific timeline by which a bail determination
must be made could lead to delays in trial proceedings, causing
alleged offenders to be held for longer without meaningful
recourse and undermining defendants' right to a speedy trial.
• A better approach would be to require judges to consider the
"least restrictive conditions" that would reasonably ensure
public safety and the defendant's appearance in court. This
approach would ensure that pretrial detention is reserved
for truly high-risk cases and reduce the risk of unnecessarily
lengthy incarceration for lower-risk defendants.
• The proposed amendment requires a judge to consider the
criminal history of a defendant when making a decision to
deny bail, which means that offenses committed long ago
could be used against the defendant, even those that were
nonviolent in nature.
Retrieved from "https://texaslegalguide.com/Special:MobileDiff/8946"

Navigation menu