‘The citizens of N.H. deserve better’

To the Editor:

The Criminal Justice Reform and Economic Fairness Act should not become law.

The Act purports to be about economic fairness when bail issues are being

considered by the court. The Act, by its very terms, creates a legislative preference for

setting cash or other economic bail conditions in a most cynical way.

The bill requires that the court when determining the amount of bail “Shall consider whether the person is a parent and sole caretaker of a child and whether, as a result, such child would become the responsibility of the division of children, youth and families.”

These words, if they mean anything, mean that two criminal defendants, otherwise identically situated, would be viewed differently under the law because of the economic impact on the State. The one defendant without a child who may “become the responsibility of the division of children, youth and families” would more likely be detained on cash or corporate surety bail.

The factors which should determine an accused’s bail are–risk to public safety, risk

to the offender, and the risk of flight. A citizen’s liberty should not be at greater risk

because he or she does not have a child who, if they were detained, would become the

responsibility of the State and therefore costs the State money. This is not economic

fairness. This is not good public policy. This is not what the New Hampshire criminal

justice system should be doing.

The Act is about much more than “economic fairness.” The Act legislatively

undermines the ability of the State to protect public safety and the accused. There is no

single factor more predictive of one’s danger to public safety or themselves than drug

and/or alcohol addiction.

The Act, with a few words, minimizes the impact of this most significant factor in the dangerousness analysis saying that a dangerous determination ” … shall not be based solely on evidence of drug or alcohol addiction …”

Those words are the legislature instructing the court to minimize the impact of addiction when considering bail. Forget the hundreds of overdose deaths a year. Forget the thousands of new addicts. Forget the countless crimes associated with addiction. Forget all the tragedy and suffering.

This is not good public policy. This will not protect the citizens of New Hampshire. This is not what the New Hampshire criminal justice system should be doing.

The conversation surrounding this Act often makes mention of “pre-trial services”

programs and how such programs will provide for public safety. One of the principal

components of such programs is urine testing for drug/alcohol use. The act

undermines the ability of these programs to protect the public.

The Acts language that a dangerousness determination “shall not be based solely on evidence of drug or alcohol addiction …” almost certainly will result in the courts being unwilling to revoke the bail of a defendant who, while on bail, is testing positive for illegal drug use.

Without enforcement, pre-trial services programs will not protect public safety. This is not good public policy. This will undermine public safety. This is not what the New Hampshire criminal justice system should be doing.

In my 30 years as a prosecutor, I cannot recall ever writing a letter to the editor on a piece of legislation. This legislation is so harmful to public safety and so cynical it warrants the special consideration.

“The citizens of New Hampshire deserve better.”

Respectfully,

Marc Hathaway

Sullivan County Attorney