To the editor: The Los Angeles Times’ article about the recent California Supreme Court decision limiting judges’ ability to impose unreasonable bail takes the standard approach of pro-police state propaganda (“Release of L.A. rabbi attack suspect ignites debate over bail after high court ruling,” May 29). It starts by describing a very scary, politically charged crime. Then, without giving details of the nuance of the bail hearing, blames the recent decision for requiring the accused person’s release. The reader is left with the impression that they are no longer safe.
Missing from the article is any explanation of how judges can detain people accused of felony crimes after holding a hearing that determines that they are dangerous if released.
Not mentioned in the article is the fact that for decades, judges have held people accused of low-level offenses in jail to pressure them to plead guilty — a systemic source of wrongful convictions — and that about one-third of felony arrests are resolved without a conviction. An article on this Supreme Court decision could have featured one of the thousands of people throughout the state who are held in jail every day, losing jobs and homes and unable to care for loved ones. All because Dist. Atty. Brooke Jenkins wants to punish people first, then decide if they are guilty.
The Supreme Court decision actually upholds constitutional rights and the basic principle that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty. The fact that judges and prosecutors have systematically disregarded our rights in the past does not make the Supreme Court decision wrong or radical. Now, the question is whether the judges will obey the law, respect our rights and uphold a free society.
John Raphling, Santa Monica
