|
DELEGATE BURDETTE: I am simply
uninformed whether there is some other
provision at law which will take care of
the perhaps rare, but nonetheless real prob-
lem, that there is no real good faith ques-
tion about the accessibility of a person for
trial. The problem really is that he is a
dangerous criminal and would continue to
repeat the crimes, such as in the case of
some person who killed a number of nurses
in Chicago. What are you going to do with
him even if you can definitely prove that
he would be available for trial?
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Grant.
DELEGATE GRANT: Actually, it is a
two-headed question.
First of all, if you have someone who is
a menace to public peace, then he should
be charged with that and this practice
that they have of picking up somebody on
a very minor offense when they are actually
after him on a major offense and could not
pick him up on the major offense because
they did not have the evidence, is one of
the rottenest practices in all American law
and should be stopped.
As far as keeping the peace, you could
always put him under a peace bond. Also,
the question conies up as to what restraint
is necessary. You could restrain him as
you find necessary. If you find a man like
the one in the Speck case who is a homi-
cidal maniac, you can certainly have him
committed as insane and put him in an
institution. This does not allow you to pick
someone up on a speeding ticket when you
are after him on a murder rap. In other
words, you have to have the evidence. You
cannot proceed to put him in on one of-
fense when you are after him for another.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: I think you
answered my question, but you still leave
me puzzled. Does this constitutional lan-
guage not simply say that all of these
restraints upon a person who may be
imagined to be insane or who may be
homicidally criminal cannot be employed
because of this language?
DELEGATE GRANT: This amendment
says either fish or cut bait.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you are
missing the question that Delegate Bur-
dette is putting to you if I may restate it.
His question is: if this amendment is in-
corporated in the constitution, will a person
charged with crime, any crime, serious or
minor, about whose appearance at trial
there is not any question, be restrained be-
cause he is a menace either to himself or
|
to the public, or would this provision pre-
vent what you now say is possible?
DELEGATE GRANT: This would not
prevent someone who is a menace to the
public from being charged as a menace to
the public and being dealt with that way.
It would prevent someone who is a menace
to the public from being charged with an-
other offense and held on a pretense under
the other offense. They have got to arrest
him for the offense of which he is sus-
pected.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Suppose he
is a menace to the public and there is no
question that he would appear for trial as
a menace?
DELEGATE GRANT: The judge would
simply have to issue a bench warrant and
charge him with the other offense. That is
what would be the procedure.
THE PRESIDENT: Again, I do not
know that you quite caught the question.
If you charged him with the other offense,
namely, being a menace to himself or the
public, but there was still no question about
his appearing to answer that charge, would
this prevent his incarceration pending the
trial?
DELEGATE GRANT: I follow what
you mean. No, I do not interpret it that
way. The only thing you can get into is a
sanity area and you can charge that right
there and give the necessary mental ex-
amination. You would have to do it prompt-
ly and then do what is necessary if he is
criminally insane.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Mr. Chairman
and ladies and gentlemen, I would like to
speak against the amendment. I had the
experience of prosecuting a large number
of criminal cases for several years and in
that time I found that there were many
cases in which dangerous defendants who
had threatened witnesses, who had threat-
ened others, and sometimes even had threat-
ened the courts came before the court for
consideration for bail.
Now, I am in favor of bail reform, but I
do think the court ought to have the dis-
cretion to consider in those rare cases
where a person has threatened others
whether or not he ought to be released, and
I think this is necessary and desirable. I
am sure in my experience people are walk-
ing the streets today, witnesses and vic-
tims of crime, who might well not be
walking the streets had their assailants and
|
