COLUMBUS, Ohio — Opponents and advocates of House Joint Resolution 2 testified before an Ohio Statehouse committee Wednesday. The resolution would require courts to consider public safety as a factor when determining bail. It has sparked mixed reactions from both sides of the aisle.
As the law stands, the seriousness of the charges, previous criminal record and the likelihood the defendent appears for trail sets bail.
The resolution is in response to a Supreme Court ruling in December, DuBose v. McGuffey, in which the court ruled 4-3 against having public safety as a factor in setting cash bond.
Testifying before the Ohio House Criminal Justice Committee meeting, co-chair and sponsor of House Bill 607 and House Joint Resolution 2 Rep. Jeff LaRe said he believes safety should be considered in setting bond. Others like LaRe supported the resolution, such as Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters, who said he believes it could empower local judges, adding they don’t dismiss the process.
“This is not a judgement made by the judges, just willy-nilly. It is a judgement. We have a pre-trial services department in our county. This isn’t just some, ‘oh, next guy: $100,000.’ If that’s the case, you’ve got the wrong judges in there,” he said.
State Public Defender Tim Young supported the Supreme Court’s ruling and testified against the resolution, saying the new proposed legislation would disproportionately target the poor.
“Much of our work is in the trial court across Ohio, where we address this every day,” said Young. “Money doesn’t equal safety. So if you set bail and you think you’re making Ohio safer, what you’re really doing is just letting rich people out, some of whom are going to hurt someone.”
Lawmakers prepped to vote on the resolution Wednesday, but House Speaker Bob Cupp (R-Lima) said the vote is postponed for further consideration.
Young said he’s glad to see lawmakers are listening.
“I do think it was a very wise move to take their time with it and slow down, given the opposition and it was thoughtful opposition,” said Young.
LaRe hopes to have the amendment on the Nov. 6 ballot, but in order for that to happen, it would need to gain the approval of 60 members of the House and 20 members of the Senate at least 90 days before the election.
