>>> THERE'S NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THE LENGTH OF A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL AND THE AMOUNT OF DEBATE IT GENERATES.

TAKE SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION ONE WHICH IS UNDER CONSIDERATION THIS SESSION.

IT WOULD ADD TWO SHORT PHRASES TO ARTICLE ONE SECTION 17 OF THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION.

SUPPORTERS TOUT THE MEASURE AS AN ATTEMPT TO PROTECT HOOSIERS BY ALLOWING JUDGES TO DENY BAIL FOR SUSPECTS THOUGHT TO POSE A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC.

A POTENTIALITIES SAY THE REAL THREAT IS THE PROPOSAL ITSELF IN THAT IT WOULD THEY SAY ERODE BEDROCK CIVIL LIBERTIES.

HI.

I'M JON SCHWANTES AND WE'LL DEBATE THIS ON INDIANA LAWMAKERS.

IS IT.

>>> FOR NOW IN KEEPING WITH THE NOTION THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION REQUIRES COURTS TO SET BAIL FOR ANY SUSPECT ACCUSED OF ANY OFFENSE OTHER THAN MURDER OR TREASON AND THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT RULED THAT JUDGES CAN'T SIDESTEP THAT PROVISION BY SETTING EXCESSIVE BAIL AMOUNTS.

THIS SEEKS TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO EMPOWER JUDGES TO KEEP POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SUSPECTSES BEHIND EMBARRASS PENDING TRIAL.

JOINING ME TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE ARE REPUBLICAN SENATOR ERIC COOK OF BEDFORD AUTHOR OF SJR ONE, SENATOR RODNEY POL JR. OF CHESTERTON REPEAL AND REPLACING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE OP CORRECTIONS AND CRIMINAL LAW, DAVIESS COUNTY PROSECUTOR DAN MURRIE REPRESENTING THE INDIANA PRETRIALING ATTORNEYS COUNCIL AND BEER THESE CORLEY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO HAVE INDIANA PUBLIC DEFENDER COUNCIL.

SENATOR, YOU ARE THE AUTHOR.

WHY IS THIS SO IMPORTANT THAT WE NEED TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION?

>> FIRST THIS IS A HANDLE HANDFUL OF BILLS THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A PRIORITY -- >> AS INDICATED THAT IT BEARS NUMBER OF ENTHUSIASM 11.

>> AND THIS IS SOMETHING TOP OF MIND FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS AND WE HEAR IT FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS, OUR PROSECUTORS OUR JUDGES, ALL OF US HAVE SADLY OPENED THE NEWSPAPER WHERE SOMEONE WAS RELEASED ON BAIL AND WENT OUT AND COMMITTED A HORRIBLE CRIME AND THE PUBLIC SAYS SAYS WHY, HOW CAN THIS LAP.

IS SJR ONE WOULD ALIGN INDIANA WITH 22 OTHER STATES WHOSE CONSTITUTION ALL HAVE SIMILAR LANGUAGE, IN ADDITION THERE'S NINE STATES THAT DON'T HAVE THINK SEDATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BAIL NOR IS THERE ONE IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.

>> PROHIBIT EXCESSIVE BAIL.

>> WHICH IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE, IT'S A RELATED BUT DIFFERENT ISSUE BUT WE'RE AN OUTLIER, WE'RE A MINORITY STATE RELATIVE TO OUR SISTER STATES AND THIS IS A NOT A RED OR BLUE ISSUE: CALIFORNIA AND TEXAS HAVE SIMILAR LANGUAGE, SO AGAIN THIS ISN'T A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT OR RED OR BLUE SEDATE ISSUE, THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.

>> AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO PHRASES, 21 WORDS IN ALL BASICALLY GIVING JUDGES MORE LATITUDE TO CONSIDER THE RISK.

>> RISK TO THE PUBLIC, ESSENTIALLY DANGEROUSNESS.

>>> WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?

ON THE SURFACE SENATOR, WHAT'S WRONG WITH KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE IS THIS.

>> SO A COUPLE OF THINGS, I CAN APPRECIATE THE IDEA OF KEEPING COMMUNITIES SAFE BUT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY IN THE COURT SYSTEM WITH THE REFORM THAT WENT INTO EFFECT.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CONSTITUTION, THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS WAS LIMITING DISCRETION TO DENY BAIL TO JUST MURDER AND TREASON, THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND NOW WE'RE ESSENTIALLY EXPANDING THAT TO ANYBODY THAT WOULD POSE OR BE DEEMED TO POSE A SUBSTANTIAL RISK TO THE COMMUNITY.

IT'S NOT DEFINED SO YOU COULD HAVE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS THROUGH THE 600 DIFFERENT JUDICIAL OFFICIALS THAT MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS.

THAT IN AND OF ITSELF DEMONSTRATES THAT YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF SURE, MAYBE CATCHING SOMEBODY THAT COULD BE A POTENTIAL RISK, HOWEVER THAT'S DEFINED, BUT YOU ALSO I THINK ARE AT A GREATER RISK TO DENY SOMEBODY THE ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, SUPPORT THEMSELVES, SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES WHILE THEY'RE AWAITING TRIAL, BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN DENIED BAIL ON THIS KIND OF UNDEFINED DETERMINATION.

AND I THINK THAT WE DID TRY TO WORK TO LIMIT THAT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT DIDN'T PASS IN THE IS THAT THE.

MY HOPE IS THAT BEFORE THE INDEPENDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE SEASON, BEFORE THAT ENDS THAT THERE IS SOME WORK TO LIMIT THAT.

>> LET ME ASK YOU, WHAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE?

YOU TALK ABOUT THE VAGUENESS HERE AND IN FACT THERE WERE REPUBLICAN SENATORS, FORMER PROSECUTOR WHO IN COMMITTEE WAS ONE OF THE NO VOTES CAN SAID IT SHOULD BE VOID BECAUSE IT IS TOO VAGUE.

CAN IT BE MADE MORE SPECIFIC?

>> RIGHT NOW IT'S MURDER AND TREE SOP, THE PROPOSAL THAT WE PUT OUT THERE AS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE WAS LIMIT THIS TO SERIOUS FELONS.

WE DON'T WANT DANGEROUS INDIVIDUALS BEING OUT ON THE STREET PRETRIAL, WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME AS INDIVIDUALS WHO COMMIT THE CRIMES OF MURDER AND TREASON, THAT'S THE INTENT INTEREST SENATOR COOK AND THE PROPONENTS OF THIS AMENDMENT.

WE LOOK AT THIS AS WELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SERIOUS VIOLENT INDIVIDUALS SO LIMIT IT TO THAT.

YOU KNOW, THE FEAR THAT I THINK WE SEE IS THAT POTENTIALLY YOU COULD HAVE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE DEEMED A RISK BECAUSE OF THEIR AFFILIATIONS, SO INDIVIDUAL THAT LEGALLY OWN A NUMBER OF FIREARMS THAT ARE NRA MEMBERS, THEY COULD BE DEEMED AS BEING A SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTATIAL RISK OR THEY COMMITTED APP OFFENSE AND YOU HAVE A JUDGE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE A LOT OF ACCESS TO FIREARMS OR YOU HVE MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED -- MEMBERS OF THE BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITY THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL AFFILIATES OF GANG AFFILIATION AND BY THAT BEING DENIGHT AS A SUBSTANTIAL RISK.

>> LET'S GO TO THE TRENCHES.

DAN MURRIE YOU SEE THIS EVERY DAY AS AN ELECTED COUNTY PROSECUTOR, ARE YOU HAMSTRUNG BY -- OR CAN YOU POINT TO CAMPS THAT PEOPLE HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET OUT UNDER THE CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION IS THIS.

>> SO I'M RELUCTANT TO POINT TO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES BUT PROSECUTORS IN GENERAL WE'RE IN FAVOR OF GIVING JUDGES MORE TOOLS TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THEIR COMMUNITY.

THEY'RE INDEPENDENTLY ELECTED AND THIS PROVISION WOULD ALLOW THEY WILL TO ASSESS WHAT THE BEST OUT COME IS.

SO TO SENATOR POL ICE'S POINT IT'S NOT ALWAYS A VIOLENT CRIME THAT CREATES A SUBSTANTIAL RISK.

I CAN SHOW YOU A NUMBER OF CRIMES, NOT ONLY A SERIOUS VIOLENT CRIME BUT CRIMES LIKE STALKING CAN CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL RISK TO AN IDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL AND WE FOR WHATEVER REASON CAN'T PUT A BOND ON THEM THAT'S HIGH ENOUGH AND IT'S NOT HONEST TO PUT A 10 MILLION-DOLLAR BOND ON SOMEBODY.

THEY NEED AN HONEST HEARING TO IT'S UNTIL WE CAN RESOLVE YOUR CASE.

>>> AND MANY INDIVIDUALS DON'T HAVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION.

>> IN AN INITIAL HEARING MOST OF THE TIME THEY DON'T BUT AT THAT HEARING THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY ASSIGNED COUNCIL IF NECESSARY AND I'M ALMOST IMMEDIATELY IN CONTACT WITH THEIR COUNSEL ABTHEIR SITUATION AND WE HAVE BOND REDUCTION HEARINGS VERY QUICKLY SO JUDGES CAN DETERMINE -- >>> SO IN DAVIESS COUNTY IF SOMEBODY REQUESTED A BOND REDUCTION HEARING THAT PERSON WOULD HAVE LEGAL REPPING REPRESENTATION?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> ALL RIGHT BERNICE CORLEY, WHAT'S WHEREON WITH THIS?

I'LL GO BACK TO THAT INITIAL QUESTION, MAYBE SOUNDS GOOD ON PAPER, WHY THE CONCERN?

>> UNNECESSARY AND DANGEROUS.

ONENESSES IS THAT JUDGES ARE ALREADY DIRECTED TO CONSIDER WHETHER A PERSON IS LIKELY TO FAIL TO APPEAR AND WHETHER THAT PERSON IS A RISK TO THE PUBLIC IN TERMS OF DANGEROUSNESS SO JUDGES ALREADY HAVE THAT IN STATUTE.

DANGEROUS IN THAT THE STATE OF INDIANA FOR OVER A DECADE HAS BEEN WORKING TO TAKE ASH ARBITRARINESS OUT OF DECISIONS SO WHETHER YOU'RE BLACK, BROWN A PERSON OF NATIONAL ORIGIN OUT OF THIS COUNTRY WE'RE TAKING BIAS OUT OF IT SO THAT JUDGES ARE MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON DATA AND BIAS BEING REMOVED THANKFUL LANGUAGE LITERALLY IN SETTLER CERTS BIAS OPPORTUNITY SUCH THAT WHETHER IT'S JUST BIAS OR A PERSONALITY OR A FAMILY BEEF THAT HAS GONE ON IN COUNTIES FOR A WHILE, A PERSON IS VULNERABLE TO LOSING THEIR FREEDOM PRETRIAL, AND THEN JUST TO TACK ON TO WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT INITIAL HEARING, WE DO NOT HAVE A PUBLIC DEFENDER SYSTEM, AN APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL SYSTEM THAT WILL PROTECT A PRESUMED INNOCENT PERSON.

TO YOUR POINT IF A PERSON IS DEEMEDDED TO BE HELD UNDER THIS LANGUAGE, IN MANY COUNTIES AND I APPRECIATE WHAT DAN SAID ABOUT DAVIES, THE STATUTE DOES NOT REQUIRE COUNSEL TO BE PRESENT AT THE INITIAL HEARING, THEY GET APPOINTED COUNSEL BUT THAT PERSON IS NOT THERE AND IN SOME COUNTIES IT CAN TAKE A WEEK OR MORE BEFORE YOU GET A BOND REVIEW HEARING.

SO WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THAT WEEK?

YOU PERHAPS LOST YOUR JOB, CUSTODY OF YOUR CHILDREN WHILE YOU'RE PRESUMED INNOCENT.

IT'S DISTURBING.

>>> SAN FRANCISCO AND WE SHOULD POINT OUT THIS WAS THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT AFTER FOUR YEARS OF PILOT STUDIES AND ANALYSES WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ENCOURAGE ACTUALLY AND BRING ALIGNMENT OR SOME STANDARDS I GUESS TO PRETRIAL RELEASE AND IN FACT, OWN COURAGE ENCOURAGE PRETRIAL RELEASE IN MANY INSTANCES.

OKAY.

SO YOU'VE HEARD THE OTHER SIDE HERE.

LET'S TAKE THE CONCERNS MAYBE ONE AT A TIME, WHAT ABOUT THE NOTION THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE HELD EVEN FOR SHORTLY PERIODS OF TIME ARE MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIMES DOWN THE LINE?

AND WE CAN POINT TO ANY NUMBER OF STUDIES THAT POINT TO THAT EVEN SOMETHING AS BRIEF AS A 24 HOUR OR 36 HOUR INCARCERATION PRETRIAL CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS AND I PRESUME THAT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING EXPOSED TO HARDENED CRIMINALS AS MUCH AS IT IS THEY'RE PERHAPS LOSING JOB OR MISSING PAYMENT ON THEIR APARTMENT OR PERHAPS NOT ABLE TO CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN, ET CETERA THAT.

A COMPELLING ARGUMENT?

>> THAT'S THE CASE IN IN CIRCUMSTANCES NOW, IN THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SPHERE WE HAVE AN EIGHT HOUR HOLD, WE HAVE A BILL THAT WOULD RAISE THAT TO 24 HOURS, THIS WOULD BE ANNAL ADDITIONAL TOOL THAT IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT IT WOULD LET A JUDGE DENY BAIL TO SOMEONE WHO'S JUST AT A HIGH RISK OF STALKING OR KILLING SOMEONE.

>> SO THE FACT THEY MAY BE KNOCKED OUT OF THEIR APARTMENT OR ANGER -- SOMEBODY WHO HAS COCUSTODY OF A CHILD OR LOSES A JOB, THAT'S -- >> THAT'S IS IT CASE TODAY WITH MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE ARRESTED, THAT WOULDN'T BE A NEW CONCERN, BUT I DO WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT CRIMINAL RULE 26 AND IT HAS BROUGHT SOME OBJECTIVITY BUT THAT ASSESSMENT TOOL IS NOT DESIGNED TO ASCERTAIN AND MEASURE RISK TO THE COMMUNITY, THAT'S FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPEARANCE AND MEASURING FLIGHT RISK, SO WHILE IT'S RELEVANT AND IT COULD DEVELOP SOME FACTS THAT COULD BE HELPFUL TO A JUDGE UNDER THIS NEW LANGUAGE, THAT'S NOT THE PURPOSE.

>>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT BEFORE 1996 IN INDIANA FLIGHT RISK WAS THE ONLY CONSIDERATION.

I MEAN, THERE'S NO OTHER FACTOR THAT COULD BE BROUGHT TO BEAR -- I THINK IT'S LEGISLATION ENACTED IN THAT YEAR THAT ACTUALLY STARTED US DOWN THIS PATH.

ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE -- THAT WE'RE BETTER OFF NOW THAN WE WERE BEFORE 1996?

WE DIDN'T HEAR A CALL FOR THIS KIND OF REFORM THROUGHOUT THE 21ST CENTURY.

>>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BAIL REFORM?

>> AM I RIGHT, THE ONLY THING YOU COULD CONSIDER IF YOU WERE A JUDGE OTHER THAN MURDER AND TREASON WAS A FLIGHT RISK ISSUE.

>> AND IN THE CONTEXT OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION, WHICH IS SAFETY TO THE COMMUNITY UNDER OUR CURRENT CONSTITUTION YOU COULDN'T CONSIDER THAT IN 96 EITHER.

>> RIGHT.

>> SO KIND OF FAST FORWARD TO TODAY -- >> YOU WOULD SAY IT'S A FLAW NOW?

>> I WOULDN'T CALL IT A FLAW.

WE AMEND OUR CONSTITUTION FROM TIME TO TIME AND IT'S NOT AN EASY THING TO DO AND IT SHOULDN'T BE EASY TO DO.

I WANT TAKES THE AFFIRMATIVE VOLT OF TWO CONSECUTIVELY ELECTED GENERAL ASSEMBLIES.

>>> SO NOT NEXT SESSION, IT HAS TO BE THE SESSION AFTER THAT.

>> AND THE MOST IMPORTANT STEP OF ALL IS THE PEOPLE OF INDIANA -- 202 SIB AT THE EARLIEST THAT GENERAL ELECTION, WE HAVE AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION RECENTLY TO REQUIRE A BALANCED BUDGET.

WE HAVE AMENDED OUR CONSTITUTION TO CREATE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH, WE'VE AMENDED OUR CONSTITUTION TO CAP PROPERTY TACKS, SO IT'S A DIFFICULT PROCESS.

IT SHOULD BE DIFFICULT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DO FROM TIME TO TIME.

>>> EVEN MOST COMPELLING ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS, IS IT THE NOTION THAT PEOPLE CAN LOSE JOBS AND RUN INTO DIFFICULTY OF CUSTODIAN SHIP OF THEIR CHILDREN, BUT AFRICAN-AMERICANS BAIL IS GENERALLY SET A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT HIGHER AND LATIN -- LATINO POPULATION SAME.

IN YOUR ARSENAL OF COMPLETEDS WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE MOST COMPELLING.

>> THERE IS EC DATA TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE GOING TO KEEP THE COMMUNITY SAFER THAN WHAT WE HAVE NOW, THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE NOW.

I THINK THERE'S A SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT CAME OUT THAT DEMONSTRATED THAT AN INDIVIDUAL, A TEENAGE GIRL THAT HAD BEEN INCASES RE, I BELIEVE AND I'M LOOKING TO BERNICE BECAUSE I KNOW SHE'S PRETTY WELL VERSED IN THIS.

>> SHE WAS DRIVING THE CAR, THE ALLEGED GETAWAY CAR.

>> YEAH, SHE WAS.

>> YOU CAN LOOK TO ME TOO GYRE BUT YOU HAD BAIL SET AT $50,000 AND THAT'S EFFECTIVELY A NO BAIL.

>> AND THAT'S EXACTLY IT, I MEAN I THINK THE SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE THIS PLACE NOW DOES PROVIDE FOR THE BILLION ABILITY FOR COURTS TO ALREADY ASSESS -- TO I GUESS ASSESS WHAT IS THE PROPER BAIL FOR AN INDIVIDUAL AND IF THAT IS UNATTAINABLE, THAT IS ESSENTIALLY EFFECTIVELY KEEPING THAT PERSON OUT, SO WE ALREADY HAVE THE DISCRETION THAT'S THERE.

I THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO -- YOU'RE GOING TO CATCH MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE -- THAT SHOULD ABSOLUTELY ENJOY THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, AND I THINKS THE FLIPPING THE SCRIPT ON THOSE INDIVIDUALS, PEOPLE THAT FIND THEMSELVES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LAW.

YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT IS ONCE A COMPELLING.

A HAS BEEN MADE THAT YOUR AFFILIATIONS, YOUR BACKGROUND, MAYBE THE FACTS AND -- AND I THINK ONE THING THAT WE CAN'T IGNORE IS THESE -- AND A LOT OF TIMES THESE ARE ELECTED JUDGES THAT ARE MAKING THE DETERMINATIONS AND YOU MAY HAVE HIGH PROFILE CASES WHERE THERE IS GOING TO BE I THINK SOME MORE PRESSURE TO YOU KNOW, FROM BOTH THE COMMUNITY, FROM VICTIMS, YOU KNOW FAMILY MEMBERS OF VICTIMS TO ENSURE WE DON'T WANT THAT PERSON TO GET OUT.

>> LET ME ASK SOMEBODY WHO OWES HIS CURRENT JOB TO VOTERS CAN THAT WOULD BE THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR, HOW ABOUT THAT YOU NEED TO BE SEEN AS TOUGH ON CRIME AND THAT HEAVEN FORBID SOMEBODY GOES OUT AND COMMITS A CRIME, THAT THERE IS THAT TEND CITY TO WANT TO ERR IT ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION WHICH MAY MEAN LOCKING PEOPLE UP?

>> COUPLE THIS CAN, THE ONE I TRUST JUDGES TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.

TWO PROSECUTORS ARE IN AN ADVERSARIAL POSITION, AND WE CAN ARGUE OTHER THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND BY AND LARGE I DO BELIEF JUDGES MAKE THE CORRECT DECISION ON THE EVIDENCE, BUT LET'S TAKE THE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF THE WOMAN WHO COULDN'T POST 50,000-DOLLARS.

AS A PROSECUTOR I LIKE TRANSPARENCY, THAT SHOULD BE HELD BECAUSE OF FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS IF THAT'S WHAT THE JUDGE DECIDES NOT BECAUSE SHE CAN'T POST BOND.

I'M AGAINST HAVING WEALTHY PEOPLE BEING IN A BETTER POSITION HAVING COMMITTED THE SAME CRIME AND THEY COULD POST THE BOND.

LET'S MAKE IT NOT ABOUT THE MONEY ON THE HIGH END AND SAY IF YOU POSE A THREAT TO THE COMMUNITY YOU SHOULD BE HELD.

THE PROSECUTOR HAS SHOWN THAT, WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES FROM THERE.

THE IDEA THAT BOND ON THE HIGH END IS SUFFICIENT DOESN'T ALWAYS CAPTURE THE WHOLE TRUTH SO THAT'S WHY WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE IN A POSITION TO GIVE TOOLS TO JUDGES AND TRANSPARENCY TO THE COMMUNITY.

QUITE FRANKLY IF I WENT TO THE COFFEE SHOP AND I TOLD MY BUDDIES THAT A SUBSTANTIAL RISK WASN'T WHAT JUDGES CONSIDER RIGHT NOW THEY WOULD BE STUNNED.

THEY WOULD BE LIKE, WAR WE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE SET BOND?

SO IT'S ONE TO HAVE THINGS WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE WHAT THE PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY ON THIS.

>>> RESPOND TO THIS, AGAIN, IS IT THE NOTION -- SOUNDS AS IF THERE IS SOME CONCERN ABOUT A TWO TIER SOCIAL ECONOMICS AND YOU SAY YOU WOULD LIKE TO FIND WAYS TO WORK WORK AROUND THAT.

IS IT RACE, AGAIN, THE DATA SHOWS THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON BAILS HAVE BEEN NATIONALLY SET HIGH HIGHER IN -- AGAIN, WHICH IS OF THESE IS THE ONE THAT YOU WOULD PUT YOUR MONEY ON IN TERMS OF YOU'RE TRYING TOE TO MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT TO HOOSIERS WHAT DO DO YOU TELL THEM?

>> THE PROBLEM IS AS DAN ALLUDED TO THERE ARE POOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT VIOLENT, NOT DANGEROUS WHO ARE HELD ON JAIL ON A VERY LOW AMOUNT OF BAIL, A THOUSAND DOLLAR OR LESS, THE THERE ARE JAIL ALL OVER INDIANA STUFFED WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE POOR AND A NORTH NO MATTER -- MINORITY OR NOT A MAJORITY PERSON IN INDIANA.

AND THAT IS NOT BEING ADDRESSED HERE.

STAID WHAT WE'RE ADDING ANOTHER LAYER TO THE PEOPLE PRESUMED INNOCENT AND IT'S NOT RIGHT TO USE OUR PUBLIC RESOURCES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FOR ALL OF OUR GOOD TO GO LARGELY TO INCARCERATING PEOPLE THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE ARE MORE DANGEROUS THAN ANYBODY ELSE.

IT'S HARD TO NARROW IT DOWN TO ONE, IT'S QUITE DANGEROUS AND WE ARE NOT ADDRESSING OUR REAL PROBLEM AND WE ARE ALL RIGHT HURTING PEOPLE BY NEED LESS INCARCERATION AND EWING OF THESE COERCIVE TOOLS.

>>> AS WE LOOK AT TRENDS AND YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT THE STATES THAT ALREADY HAVE THIS APPROACH, BUT OTHER STATES AND PERHAPS THIS PREDATES THE PANDEMIC, WHICH OCCURRED TO A LOT OF US BUT THERE WERE STATED MOVING TOWARD ELIMINATING CASH ACTUALLY AND SAYING ESSENTIALLY NEW JERSEY, FOR INSTANCE IF IT'S A NON-VIOLENT OFFENSE YOU GET A SUMMONS AND IF IT'S VIOLENT YOU'RE HELD 48 HOURS AND THEY SAW 35 PER REDUCTION IN THEIR JAIL POPULATION, IT SEEMED TO WORK OUT WELL.

THERE'S IN REAL SPIKE YOU RECOLLECT AGAIN THE DATA I GUESS YOU COULD SAY AREN'T RIPE YET, OTHER STATES,N.

AND OTHERS HAVE DONE THIS, ARE THEY OFF BASE IN THEIR APPROACH TO TRY TO TAKEN THAT DIFFERENT -- >> I'M PERSONALLY NOT A SUPPORTER OF NO CASH BAIL, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE EARLY TO DRAW CONCLUSION ABOUT THE OTHER STATES CAN WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL.

THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE THAN THE ONE BEFORES TODAY, WHICH IS WHAT IS OUR OBLIGATION AS LEADERS OF OUR COMMUNITY AND WHEN YOU STEP BACK AND ANYBODY WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL REASON THAT MEN AND WOMEN FORMED THE GOVERNMENTS?

AND THAT WAS FOR THEIR SAFETY, THAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT AND IN MY MIND THIS BILL FULFILLS THAT PURPOSE.

>> I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY I'M GLAD THAT SENATOR COOK BROUGHT THAT UP.

THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF BAIL WAS TO ENSURE THAT YOU SHOWED UP FOR COURT AND THIS KIND OF THROWS THAT OUT THE WINDOW AND SAYS WELL KNOW WE DON' CARE WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOW UP FOR COURT, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE YOU SHOW UP FOR COURT.

AND I THINK THAT REALLY TURNINGS IT -- AND I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THE OTHER STATES THAT DO HAVE NO CASH BAIL.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S NECESSARILY WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS BUT ULTIMATELY WHEN YOU SEE THE DATA AND THE STATES WHERE YOU DON'T SEE A SPIKE IN VINYL CRIME AND SEE A REDUCTION IN JAIL POPULATION, SOMETHING THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT, OUR JAILS ARE GETTING SO PACKED WE'RE TRYING TO SHIP LOW LEVEL OFFENDERRERS TO DOC.

>> WHERE THEY CAN GET MENTAL HEALTH HEALTH TREATMENT & IS IT ADDICTION.

>> SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IS MORE CROWDED JAILS AND MORE FUNDS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EBBING PEND AS A STATE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AND AT DOC, WHICH I KNOW THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SHIFT THAT'S COMING, SO I THINK WE'RE REALLY TINKERING IN CHANGING OUR ENTIRE CONSTITUTION AND 2011ING THE SCRIPT ON ACCUSE INDIVIDUALS AND I DON'T THINK IT'S THE RIGHT DECISION.

>>> DAN MURRIE DO WE KNOW ENOUGH RIGHT NOW, THE FOR PROFIT BAIL INDUSTRY DOESN'T HAVE TO -- IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO RELEASE ANY DATA ABOUT ANY WHO SHOWS UP WHO DOESN'T, ET CETERA AND THEN WE HAVE SOME NONPROFITS THAT HAVE TRIED TO GATHER THAT INFORMATION.

DO WE NEED MORE -- ARE WE STARVED FOR DATA BEFORE WE CAN MAKE THE DECISIONS.

>> I LOVE DATA BUT I LOVE SOLVING PROBLEMS EVEN MORE AND THE WAY THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT HAS BEEN WRITTEN IS JUST A PROBLEM SOLVING TOOL.

THAT'S IT.

I I DON'T DEAL WITH CASH BAIL BOMBEDS IN MY SMALL COUNTY SO I COULDN'T ANSWER IS THAT BUT TO BERNICE'S POINT, YEAH, THERE'S ALWAYS ROOM TO IMPROVE AS PROSECUTORS.

I DON'T CLAIM OTHERWISE, I OWE WHAT I DO WITH LOW LEVEL OFFENDERRERS AND I'M A BIG FAN OF NOT HAVING TOO MANY CONTACTS WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM BUT WE DEAL WITH THE BIGGER PICTURES WHICH IS THE MOST DANGEROUS AMONG US.

>>> WE HAVE EARLY RELEASE FOR YOU, THIS DEBATE WAGES OVER THIS SESSION, AND THEN VOTERS.

WHERE DOES THAT BATTLE TACTICALLY NEED TO BE WAGED?

BECAUSE ONCE ET GETS TO VOTERS, SHOULD JUNES GET TO WORRY ABOUT YOUR SAFETY?

SO IS THIS BATTLE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE DOES IT NEED TO BE WAGED AND WON IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY?

>> THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AND IT HAS TO BE AND I HOPE A FULLER DISCUSSION HAPPENS.

IF WE'RE GOING TO ENSHRINE DETENTION WE KNEE TO ENSHRINE PRESUMPTIVE RELEASE FOR LOW LEVEL LOW RISK PEOPLE IS.

>>> AT LEAST WE'VE STARTED IS THAT DISCUSSION AND I THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING PART OF THIS.

WE'LL BE WATCHING THIS SESSION AND BEYOND.

AGAIN MY GHOST GUESTS SENATOR ROD LEE POLL JR. OVERCOMESSER TON, DAVIESS COUNTY PROSECUTOR DAN MURRIE AND BERNICE CORLEY.

AND TIME NOW FOR OUR WEEKLY CONVERSATION WITH INDIANA LAWMAKERS COMMENTATOR I WOULD FEIGENBAUM PUBLISHER OF THE NEWSLETTER INDIANA IN SIGHT.

ED LET'S TALK PROCESS, I KNOW YOU'RE A PROCESS GUY.

IT'S MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE, NOW WHAT.

>> NOW IT GOES TO THE FLOOR OBVIOUSLY BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THIS HAS TO PASS IN TWO SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SO IS THAT MEANS THE GROUPs OF LAWMAKERS GETS TO VOTE ON THIS SO WHATEVER HAPPENS THIS YEAR IF IT DOES PASS THIS YEAR THAT'S NOT THE END OF THINGS, AND IF IT PASSES IN THE IS IT TWO SUCCESS DIFFUSESES IT GOES ON TO THE BALLOT FOR THE 2026 ELECTION AND THE PEOPLE GET TO VOLT ON IT, YOU THINK IT'S A SLAM DUNK, PEOPLE WILL SAY WE HAVE TO PASS THIS THING BUT WHAT WE MAY SEE IS THE SAME PHENOMENON THAT WE'RE SEEING NATIONALLY AND THAT'S THAT YOU HAVE THE THIRD PARTY INTEREST GROUPS, THE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS THAT HAVE A PARTICULAR BENT ON AN ISSUE COME IN ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO SPEND HOWEVER MANY IMPORTANCE OF DOLLARS TO CAPTURE THE MIGHT NOTES OF HOOSIER VOTERS AND YOU MAY HAVE SOME INTERESTING.

AS RAISED THAT MAY TWIST THE DEBATE.

SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

>>> AND A LOT OF ATTENTION WILL BE PAID TO THE WORDING BECAUSE THAT COULD MAKE OR BREAK THE WAY THIS -- >> ABSOLUTELY THE QUESTION YOU POSED TO BERNICE CORLEY WAS APP APROPOS AND THAT'S IS THIS WHERE YOU NEED TO KILL ILL BECAUSE OTHERWISE GOING TO END UP GOING TO THE VOTERS.

>>> SO LET ME.

YOU A VERSION OF WHAT I ASKED HI AND YOU'RE RIGHT, THIRD PARTIES COULD COME IN IN 2026, HOW LIKELY THIS SESSION, AGAIN 5-3-VOLT OUT OF COMMITTEE, ONCE ENTIRELY PAINTER LINE BUT WHAT DO YOU SEE HAPPENING AS IT MOVES THROUGH THE CHAMBERS.

>> WE SAW A REALLY GREAT DEBATE IN COMMITTEE THAT SENATOR COOK LED ON THIS ONE, SOME OF THE SAME PLAYERS WE HAD AROUND THE TABLE TODAY AND YOU SEE A GREAT DISCUSSION TODAY AND THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUBSTANCE AND THE ROUND TABLE AND WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE.

THAT GETS A LITTLE MORE RAW CAN YOU SAY AND A LITTLE MORE POPULIST THEME AND THINGS COULD BE DIFFERENT ON THE FLOOR THAN ON COMMITTEE.

>>> VERY GOOD, WE'LL BE WATCHING.

AS ALWAYS ED THANK YOU FOR YOUR IN SIGHT.

THIS IS THE FINAL BUDGET SESSION FOR ERIC HOLCOMB.

WILL LAWMAKERS LOOK FAVORABLY ON HIS PRIORITIES?

THAT'S IN THE NEXT SESSION OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS.

I'M JON SCHWANTES AND ON BEHALF OF COMMENTATOR ED FEIGENBAUM I THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AND I INVITE YOU TO VISIT WFYI.ORG FOR MORE STATEHOUSE NEWS.

UNTIL NEX