How should Arizonans vote on Proposition 103, which would eliminate the possibility of bail for suspects of certain sex crimes

Jason Winsky

Safety of community and victim's rights most important

Take a look at Prop. 103 if you care about your community. Take a serious look at Prop. 103 if you care about children and families. And vote yes on Prop. 103 if you want to clean up our streets and keep the bad guys where they belong: jail.

The state of Arizona has a serious problem with sexual assault and child molestation. Almost 4,000 people were charged with sex crimes in our state last year, and Prop. 103 seeks to keep us safe from these psychopaths. If passed, those individuals charged with rape would be held in jail without bail. Of course, the soft-on-crime liberals cry, saying everyone is supposed to be given the opportunity to post bail. Why not, they would argue, just set a high bail for dangerous people? The answer is almost as scary as the question.

We seem to have some terrible judges out there who are setting bails that are laughable. We've got good old Walter Weber in Pima County setting a $5,000 bail for a man accused (and later convicted) of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old girl. Is he up for ACLU judge of the year or what? That conversation must have looked something like this:

Judge: Do you want bail?

Child Rapist: Well, I'd like to go assault some more children before my trial · I mean, um · get a job · or something. So, uh, yeah, give me bail.

Judge: OK, give the bailiff five bucks and I'll see you in a couple of months.

The best part of this proposition is all the liberals who suddenly become legalistic. They want us to follow the letter of the law exactly and give criminals bail. So if we are to follow the law exactly, why can't law-abiding citizens carry their guns on campus as provided for by state, federal and constitutional law? Where are the legalistic liberals then?

Here's the bottom line: We obviously can't trust some of our judges to set reasonable bails that protect us from the criminals in our community. They have to be told what to do to protect the community. Vote yes on Prop. 103.

Jason Winsky is a political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

Caitlin Hall

Poorly written Prop. 103 is dangerous to due process

You may be wondering how anyone could support improving the freedom of the most heinous criminals in our society: child molesters and rapists. If you find out, let me know.

I certainly don't base my opposition to Prop. 103 on the idea such scoundrels deserve our lenience or trust. However, there are a number of serious problems with the amendment ÷ and note that it's an amendment to the state Constitution, a much more radical and irrevocable proposal than the creation of a new law ÷ that has infinitely more to do with logic than with sympathy for such criminals.

First, the amendment is unnecessary, as anyone who reads the text of the section of the Constitution that the amendment would affect will realize. The amendment would add to the list of non-bailable offenses "sexual assault, sexual conduct with a minor under 15 years of age or molestation of a child under 15 years of age."

One of the main arguments put forth in favor of the proposition is the belief that it will keep criminals released from jail from committing more criminal acts before they can be tried. However, the same section of the Constitution says that bail is to be withheld for felonies in which "the person charged poses a substantial danger to any other person or the community, if no conditions of release which may be imposed will reasonably assure the safety of the other person or the community."

So what's the difference? The difference is that, with the new amendment, the person detained for an unspecified amount of time awaiting trial need not pose a continued threat to any individual or society as a whole. When you look deeper into the definition of "sexual conduct with a minor under 15 years of age," you realize that this means a teenager could be held in the presence of criminals for an extended time period under suspicion that they had engaged in oral sex with a consenting partner of the same age.

The amendment offered by Prop. 103 is not only useless, but harmful to the cause of due process. It will do nothing to keep dangerous criminals off the streets, but will instead infringe upon the rights of un-convicted suspects whom a judge determines pose no threat to society.

One last thing to note: This philosophically empty but doggedly political proposition was proposed by the Republican candidate for governor, Matt Salmon.

Caitlin Hall is a biochemistry and philosophy sophomore. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.