Arizona Republic (Arizona)
By Laurie Roberts
June 1, 2015
[…] The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that tossed out the state law denying bail to undocumented immigrants
accused of certain felony crimes.
In
fact, it wouldn't even hear the appeal – a move that Justice Samuel
Alito said showed "insufficient respect to the State of Arizona, its
voters, and its Constitution,"
The
law was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2006, one of several
initiatives approved at the peak of the furor over illegal immigration.
It then came under fire from
critics who say it unfairly singles out Latino immigrants as flight
risks while allowing others to await trial while free.
The 9th
Circuit threw out the law last year, ruling that it violates the
due-process rights of the immigrants by imposing punishment before
trial.
The
Supreme Court this morning let that ruling stand, denying Maricopa
County Attorney Bill Montgomery's appeal. Montgomery argues that
immigrants who are here illegally
are not likely to show up for court if set free. But he presented no
statistics to the appellate court to back up that claim.
Prop.
100, approved by 78 percent of voters, said that anyone in the country
illegally who is accused of a serious crime should be denied bail. It
was crafted by former
state Senate President Russell Pearce – at the time a state
representative – who argued that anyone who has crossed the border
illegally probably has few ties to this country. That, he said,
automatically makes them at greater risk of fleeing before trial.
At
the time, that made sense to me. A person who commits murder, mayhem or
some other serious crime is naturally going to head for the hills (or
in this case, the border)
if he or she is looking at serious prison time.
Then the Legislature then defined "serious" as any class four felony or above.
Then,
then-Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas started using the no-bail
law as leverage to win low-level felony guilty pleas from those who
didn't want to spend endless
months in jail awaiting trial on offenses that are punishable by
probation. Those convictions then lead to deportation and a likely bar
to any chance to return the legal way.
The
purpose of the no-bail law wasn't to make prosecutors' lives easier. It
was to protect the public and ensure that people charged with serious
crimes showed up for
their day in court.
Given the no-bail law, people actually have been forgoing their day in court.
Even
with Prop. 100 now gone, a person who is accused of a truly serious
crime won't be released. Offenses such as first-degree murder and rape
are already non-bondable.
Bond is also not allowed if you're already charged with another felony
or when public safety is at risk, be appealed.
If you're charged with other crimes, a judge can already set a high bond should he or she determine that you're a flight risk.
The
question at hand: should a person accused of shoplifting automatically
be treated the same as a person accused of murder – with no chance for a
hearing to determine
whether they should be released?
The high court today has answered that question. The answer: no.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment