by Justyna M. – Criminal Justice
Colorado Amendment I: Denying bail in first-degree murder cases (coloradosun.com)
As Colorado citizens prepare for the upcoming 2024 elections, a contentious debate is heating up regarding whether judges should have the authority to deny bail for individuals charged with first-degree murder – Amendment 1. With the state having abolished the death penalty in 2020 under Governor Jared Polis, the implications of this debate have become even more significant for public safety and justice.
What Does First-Degree Murder Mean in Colorado?
Under Colorado law, first-degree murder can be charged in various situations, including:
- Premeditated intent to kill
- Conduct showing extreme indifference to human life that results in death
- Providing controlled substances to a child on school grounds, resulting in the child’s death
- A person in a position of trust causing the death of someone younger than 12 years old
If convicted of first-degree murder in Colorado, an adult defendant faces a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole.
The Colorado General Assembly placed Amendment I on the ballot through House Concurrent Resolution 1002. To amend the state constitution, the resolution needed two-thirds support from both the House and Senate. The resolution passed unanimously in the Senate and by a 59-5 vote in the House. The “no” votes came almost exclusively from progressive Democrats.
The Argument for Denying Bail
From my perspective as an advocate and activist, the answer to this question seems clear: Yes, judges should be able to deny bail for those charged with first-degree murder. Many voices within our prison systems, including inmates themselves, have expressed concerns that the judicial system has grown too lenient. Given the gravity of first-degree murder charges, it is crucial for our community’s safety that individuals charged with such crimes are kept in custody until their trial.
According to nonpartisan legislative staff, the passage of Amendment I would slightly increase the workload of state courts, public defenders, and district attorneys, who would need to review whether the evidence supports denying bail in first-degree murder cases. However, because such cases are relatively rare and already require intensive legal scrutiny, the overall impact on state spending is expected to be minimal.
Supporters of Amendment I argue that the measure would restore a longstanding legal precedent in Colorado, one that was inadvertently eliminated with the repeal of the death penalty. They believe that individuals for whom there is strong evidence of guilt pose a significant danger to others and should not be released on bail while awaiting trial. This standard, known as “proof is evident or presumption is great,” is a high legal threshold meant to protect public safety.
Take, for example, the outrage surrounding bond amounts in domestic violence or burglary cases. When a bond is set at $1,000, it raises eyebrows and concerns. Now imagine the ramifications of releasing someone charged with first-degree murder on bail. Keeping such individuals in custody is not just about community safety; it may also be in their best interest, considering the potential dangers they might face if released, especially if they have strong ties to gang activities or mental health issues.
The Opposition’s Viewpoint
Opponents of denying bail argue that doing so is unconstitutional and unfair, especially if the accused may ultimately be acquitted. While I understand this viewpoint, it raises an important issue: the reality is that if an individual cannot afford the bail set by the court, they will remain in county jail awaiting trial. This situation is not just a flaw in the system; it highlights the broader issue of inequality in access to justice.
Concerns about judges having the discretion to impose restrictive bail conditions have also emerged. While it’s true that judges should evaluate each case carefully, I argue that the safety of the community must come first. For instance, individuals charged with sex offenses often face high bail amounts due to the severe stigma and public outcry. The system is designed to protect the community, and in these cases, it often does not receive the same scrutiny as those involving murder.
The denial of bond for sex offenders compared to those charged with murder involves several similarities and differences.
Nature of the Crime: Murder: Charges can vary widely in severity (e.g., first-degree, second-degree, manslaughter) and often involve intent to kill or extreme disregard for human life. Sex Offenses: These can range from non-violent offenses to violent crimes, including assault and exploitation of minors, with varying degrees of societal stigma and emotional impact on victims.
Legal Standards for Denying Bond: Murder Cases: In many jurisdictions, the legal threshold for denying bond in murder cases may be lower than in sex offense cases. For instance, if there’s probable cause to believe the accused committed murder, a judge may deny bond. Sex Offense Cases: Bond may be denied if there is sufficient evidence indicating that the accused poses a danger to the community or if the legal standard (e.g., “proof is evident or presumption is great”) is met.
Historical Context and Stigma: Murder: While murder carries a significant societal stigma, there may be some variability in public perception based on the circumstances (e.g., self-defense, domestic violence). Sex Offenses: There is often a stronger societal stigma associated with sex offenses, leading to heightened fear and concern from the public, which can influence court decisions on bond.
Judicial Discretion: Judges have discretion in both types of cases, but the specific legal frameworks and guidelines for assessing risk and public safety may differ. For sex offenses, judges may impose restrictive conditions on bail even if they set it, while for murder charges, they may more commonly deny bail outright.
The Need for Judge Accountability and Training
Moreover, we need to consider the qualifications and training of the judges themselves. There are calls for better training and education for judges on assessing risks appropriately. Not every individual appointed to the bench possesses the necessary understanding of the complexities surrounding bail and the safety of the community.
“If there’s a problem with (a judge’s) decision making, then that’s something the commissions should know, the public should know and be able to consider.”
Home | Judicial Performance (colorado.gov)
As citizens, it’s our responsibility to research judicial candidates thoroughly. We must examine their past performance, any complaints filed against them, and their standards when it comes to setting bail. If we remain disengaged and merely cross off names on a ballot, we might find ourselves facing a judge whose leniency could impact our lives negatively.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the discussion surrounding the authority of judges to deny bail for first-degree murder charges is crucial for ensuring the safety of Colorado communities. As the 2024 elections approach, it is imperative for citizens to carefully consider the ramifications of this proposition. While upholding fairness and justice is vital, it should not compromise public safety. The need for a balanced approach is evident: we must empower judges to deny bail in serious cases, such as first-degree murder, to safeguard our communities. This principle should also extend to how we address bond decisions for sex offenses, ensuring consistency and fairness in the judicial process. Ultimately, our priority should be protecting the community while maintaining the integrity of our legal system.
Justice Unlocked. 
Leave a comment