As you know from my earlier notes, my kindly editor (Ed: gee, thanks!) can be a monster (Ed: wait a sec…). Somehow, he has figured out a way to taze me through my computer, or maybe I just have a short circuit in my mouse. (Ed: don’t make me come over there). Anyway, as part of my daily news ritual, I spent some time on the Colorado Politics website, as you are doing now. I happened across an article wherein Denver 9News’s Bobbi Sheldon reported on a remarkable story. And so far, no mouse shocks.

The story was remarkable for a couple of reasons. First, it’s always important when the Colorado House votes to pass a bill that dramatically impacts our state judicial process, and second, because the House unanimously passed the bill. In our hyper-partisan times, seeing a unanimous vote on something other than a “huzzah for apple pie” is worth noting. 

It seems the bill that is now on the way to the state Senate eliminates cash bail as an option for minor offenses, but keeps it in some situations, such as a person who swiped a candy bar and then ran from the police, or a traffic offense with death or bodily injury. This means that if you are arrested for, say having an open container of beer or for shoplifting a candy bar, you will not be tossed in jail pre-trail just because you can’t raise the money needed to bail yourself out. Why is this important? 

Well, it’s a win-win for cops and offenders, and it ends what has been called a “tax on poverty.” If I, for example, got cited for trespassing, I’d be able to post bail without too much difficulty. But for someone trapped in poverty (we can argue about that later) being arrested for a similar minor crime could result in months in the county jail awaiting trial. I worked in the El Paso County Jail briefly after I retired from the Air Force, and the distinction between convicted folks and those awaiting trial but too poor to bail themselves out was striking. 

I’m especially pleased by the unanimous bit. From the far right to the far left, every House member came forward for a common sense (and, frankly, common decency) law that will fix a major problem for minor criminals. 

And if you are like me (Ed: not likely), you immediately thought of the U.S. Constitution’s 7th Amendment…

Frankly speaking, the 7th is not one of the “top” amendments in terms of popularity. I’ve never seen a rally to urge greater enforcement of the 7th, nor have I seen angry letters to the editor about abuse of the 7th. This amendment, as you no doubt recall, addresses how major a criminal offence must be in order for the defendant to be given a jury trial. This is a fairly important legal matter, so I’ll wait for you to pull out your pocket Constitutions to re-read it. Go ahead, I’ll be right here.

Done? Great! Now you can see why the 7th demonstrates quite clearly why we should not be “strict constructionists,” but rather should accept that a Constitution can – and must – evolve as the society evolves. That is because the 7th is where you see the Founders lay out how big a crime must be before the defendant can have a jury trial. The value that was affixed to the Constitution in 1791 was… 20 bucks. Now, let your mind wander back to that era and you tell me whether or not a $20 threshold was intended to make jury trials about bigger crimes. I think so, in that in 1791, $20 was a rather large chunk of cash. If you factor in inflation…carry the one…the $20 crime would be roughly a $530 crime today. It makes much more sense to me that the Founders wanted juries for crimes that are in the $500 range today. 

All of which suggests to me now that the House did the right thing. Many, many people have periods of poverty in their lives – for some it is a life-long burden, for others a matter of current circumstances. Sure, we want criminals to face the consequences of their actions, but can’t we also agree that five months in the county jail awaiting trial for stealing a candy bar is most certainly not what the Founders had in mind? Well, maybe if it was a $100,000 bar, but otherwise, no. Well done, state House; let’s see what the Senate now does.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.