Print
Email
Share

Wash. lawmakers split over 'denied-bail' changes

by Associated Press & KING 5 News Staff

KING5.com

Posted on February 25, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Updated Friday, Feb 26 at 7:15 AM

OLYMPIA, Wash. - It's been declared one of the most important issues of this legislative session, but with about two weeks left, the House and Senate are divided over a proposed state constitutional amendment to restrict bail for suspected criminals.

State senators announced a bipartisan compromise Thursday on their version of the constitutional amendment, which faces ultimate approval by voters. Under the Senate plan, a suspect could be held without bail if they are accused of a specific list of crimes, with evidence of intentional harm.

"This is carefully balanced to make sure that we can actually pass and get to the people a constitutional amendment, and a good one," said Sen. Mike Carrell, R-Lakewood.

But state House lawmakers say they want a broader approach.

The constitutional amendment was proposed in response to November's slaying of four Lakewood police officers by a convicted felon who was out on bail.

Right now, unless they're facing the death penalty, all suspects must be given opportunity for bail. In a previous version of the amendment, judges could have held a suspect without bail if they believed the suspect posed a danger to the community. That was later narrowed to suspects facing a charge that carries a possible life sentence.

A past KING 5 investigation found that hundreds of violent suspects were released over a two year period from Pierce County jails alone. The types of suspects that the House version of a new bail bill would cover would give judges more discretion on denying bail.

Thursday's Senate compromise goes even further, focusing on specific charges and taking any speculation by the judges out of the decision.

"A prediction of violence is a shot in the dark right now," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Adam Kline, D-Seattle. "We're not going to have judges deny a constitutional right on a hunch."

The specific charges included in the compromise amendment are murder, manslaughter, first-degree assault, sexual offenses that carry a potential life sentence and charges that are a suspect's second and third offense under the state's "three strikes, you're out" law. It also lets the Legislature come back and add further define the criteria.

The suspect in the Lakewood shooting was released on bail less than a week before the murders, and lawmakers have worked with law enforcement officials to address what they see as flaws in the bail system exposed by that case.

But those law enforcement officials are behind the House's proposal, and were not considered in the Senate's new compromise, said Rep. Mike Hope, R-Lake Stevens.

Hope, a Seattle police officer, and Rep. Chris Hurst, D-Enumclaw, a former police detective, said Thursday they are disappointed that more people weren't involved in drafting the new proposal.

"(Law enforcement officials) were left out of this process, and that's disheartening," Hope said. "I don't think the deal should be made behind closed doors and then brought forth, especially when this truly, truly impacts the officers on the street and the victims of the crime."

Representatives from the state's law enforcement community and family members of the four slain Lakewood officers testified in front of a House committee early in the session, asking for action on the bail issue.

"This is something, had it been in effect, would have allowed a Pierce County judge to deny bail in the Lakewood matter," said Sen. Adam Kline, D- Seattle.

"This is a complete set of tools to make sure that we're looking at people who intended harm and that harm was actually done," said Sen. Mike Carrell, R-Lakewood.

But even though there is a discrepancy between the two chambers' versions of the amendment, and only about two weeks left in the legislative session, one key legislator predicted an amendment will be approved.

"We will not leave this session without this legislation," Hurst said. "This is the most important piece of criminal justice legislation in decades."

"This is a complete set of tools to make sure we're looking at people who intended harm and harm was actually done," said Carrell.

The sponsor of a similar bill in the House said the the Senate version is too "watered-down."

"The house version covers a lot of potentials," said Rep. Mike Hope, R-Lake Stevens. "When you look at the bomber in Detroit from Christmas Day, their [the Senate's] version would not cover that person."

A version of the amendment needs to clear the Legislature with two-thirds support from the Legislature before voters have the final say in November.

The constitutional amendment is Senate Joint Resolution 8224.

Print
Email
Share

To add a comment, please register or login.

1000 characters remaining

Submit

We welcome your comments on this story's topic. Off-topic comments, personal attacks, and inappropriate language may be flagged and removed, and comment privileges blocked, per our Terms of Service. Thanks for keeping the comments space respectful.

Privacy Policy

You have indicated this comment should be removed.

Close

The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .

Comments: Displaying 1 - 7 of 7

dkjamerican said on February 28, 2010 at 11:38 AM

How can they override the federal constitution? Please stop stepping on my rights. Beside that this is the first State I'v heard about where if you are an illegal immagrant, you can hit your wife, go to jail, and get a green card and citizenship in a year, it's their culture. If you are a citizen, you get to jump legal hoops for months to years including battling children services, anger managment, etc. ect. Yes thisreally happen to a illegal cannery worker. We have so many laws not being enforced why do we need more? And we need to revise the laws we have for the mentally ill. Let stop making excuses.

38429081
Flag this comment

carlconstantine said on February 26, 2010 at 9:07 AM

I'm thinking that lawmakers should be denied bail for some of the decisions that they make to cause problems in the first place.

38331341
Flag this comment

bobknows said on February 25, 2010 at 6:45 PM

Any excuse to ratchet down the rights of the people. "Excessive bail shall not be required..." is the right of a citizen under the US Constitution. Unfortunately our governments Abrogated our constitution many decades ago. They are tyranny and a police state at war with the people.

38298671
Flag this comment

ldodso said on February 25, 2010 at 4:40 PM

When we have very liberal senior senators like Klein, Franklin, and Murray that are running the very committees that can stop any legislation what do you expect. Yes; it may take more Clemmons type issues before good legislation is passed.

38292664
Flag this comment

logic14 said on February 25, 2010 at 3:58 PM

The Supreme Court Justices are the ones putting police in the most jeopardy with their decisions. Leave the laws alone and get rid of the Justices.

38290388
Flag this comment

dasindog said on February 25, 2010 at 3:34 PM

It's tough to compromise when you have amendements 5-8 to consider. One one hand, you don't want to let a dangerous person out on bail, on the other hand, you don't want to wrongfully imprison someone because they *could* pose a threat. It's a slippery slope when you have vague rules, you could be held without bail indefinitely because the judge doesn't like you or what not, even if you are not the right person, like that guy who SPD SWAT raided becuase someone thought he looked familar to a bank robber. I'll tell you, it would suck to sit in jail for 9 months without bail because you looked like someone else, and unless there are a detailed set of rules, it would happen.

38288961
Flag this comment

digiwave said on February 25, 2010 at 3:21 PM

What the heck needs to happen in this state to get tougher bail laws, or tougher laws regarding crimes of any type? What are these (so called) lawmakers thinking if they don't want to make it harder to deny bail? But then, it's Washington State, the state of "we don't want to hurt anybodies feelings because it will make them feel bad." Maybe after a few more Maurice Clemmons type of events occur, these idiot lawmakers might change their tune, but I'm not counting on it.

38288223
Flag this comment

Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?

Register Now

Member Benefits

Link your account to your Twitter or Facebook account for easier login!

Link your account to your Facebook profile Link your account to your Twitter profile

Check box to receive Free Special Offers

* - Indicates required field

Check box to receive Free Special Offers

Connecting to

You may need to allow pop up window for this step of registration

Just one more step:

Please take a moment to review the available e-mail newsletters has to offer. Place a checkbox next to the newsletters you wish to subscribe to.

Welcome.

Thank you for becoming a member of KING5.com. You now have full access to the best local coverage and late breaking news from KING5.com. Soon you will be redirected to the page you were seeking, and a confirmation email will be delivered to you.

You will need to respond to the confirmation e-mail for your account to be activated.

KING5.com is dedicated to bringing you exceptional news and outstanding information services, all while personalizing it to your liking. We're sure you'll enjoy being a KING5.com member! If you need assistance, please contact us.