Judicious Voting

We see in last week’s Weekly that there will be several judicial races in 2014 (“After 20 years on the bench, Judge Kay Kingsley to retire; endorses Commissioner Heidi Whilden,” Jan. 16-22 and “Deputy DA Steve Somers aims for third vacated bench seat on Superior Court,” posted Jan. 22”).

On the same page, the District Attorney and the sheriff opine about a crime wave of those let loose because of realignment. The public needs to pay attention to what these candidates stand for and what the sitting judges have done lately. The sheriff and the D.A. are also up for election this year. Local judges set the bail schedule for those charged with violations in Monterey County, and, for those who can’t afford bail, land up in jail waiting, presumed innocent, of course. The presiding judge and a committee of his colleagues substantially raised bail amounts in 2012. The D.A. and the sheriff support these higher bail fees. These higher bail amounts have had the effect of making sure that higher number of those presumed “innocent until proven guilty” will nonetheless serve time in the county jail. Beginning in January 2013 the percentage of those held in the jail, but unsentenced, just waiting for their day in court, increased from 70 percent to 85 percent in 12 months. What’s the point of doing this and what are the consequences?

The rated capacity of the jail is 825 individuals. Routinely, the jail holds 1,100 in the summer and 900 in the winter. Fourteen percent are women. Twenty percent have mental health issues. Twenty percent are non-felons. Amazingly, the sheriff does not have modern 21st-century data analysis software to smartly help him better manage those in his custody and reduce his numbers while keeping the community safe. The judges have packed the house with those unable to pay, short and sweet of it. Yet, the institutional dynamic is to look at this problem and see the need for more beds. Who would pass up millions in free state money to construct a bigger and better jail? But the jailers need to look at better data. The judges need to re-examine the outrageous bail schedule, one of the highest in the state. Concerned citizens will surely want to discuss this at election time with, not only the sheriff, the D.A., the judge candidates, but with the presiding judge and her colleagues.

Expanding the jail to hold greater and greater numbers of people who are innocent until proven guilty and can’t make bail does nothing but turn the jail into a debtor’s prison. Smart money is on using your head and taking a closer look at reducing the jail population with more appropriate bail fees and well-informed choices that truly protect the public interest. Gary Karnes | Monterey

The recent criticism of judicial endorsements misses the mark, in my opinion. What has not been said is that by PUBLICLY endorsing a judicial candidate, a judge is knowingly placing his/her reputation on the line. Before a judge (or anyone else) publishes their endorsement, they must have absolute confidence in the candidate’s professional qualifications and integrity. Other than Heidi Whilden (whose ability and integrity would be known to judges due to her experience sitting on the bench), the other endorsed candidates have no judicial experience, so to publicly endorse them is a risk that no judge would take lightly. A judicial endorsement of a candidate should not be viewed as an indictment of the candidate. To the contrary, endorsements are the result of the candidate’s own qualifications. Candidates can’t force or select their endorsements. Whose opinion would a voter want to know more than a judge who regularly sees the quality of the person and their work, through their professional interactions in the courtroom? To have a judge endorse a candidate should not be viewed as an “anointment,” but as something the average, unknowing voter should consider to be the highest endorsement of a candidate’s qualifications.Bob Rosenthal | Monterey