[ OUR OPINION ]
Streamlined filing
of felony charges
should be tried againHAWAII voters approved a state constitutional amendment two years ago that called for streamlining the criminal justice system by eliminating the need for antiquated grand juries. Unfortunately, the Attorney General's Office short-circuited the amendment procedure, and the state Supreme Court has overturned it before it could take effect. The amendment is worth going through the process again, doing it right this time.
THE ISSUE
Hawaii's high court has overturned a state constitutional amendment that would let prosecutors bypass a grand jury.
County prosecutors have the option of taking felony cases to grand juries or to a preliminary hearing before a judge. They take most cases to the grand juries, where defendants lack the right to confront state witnesses. That right to confrontation is guaranteed in preliminary hearings.
Grand juries are intended to scrutinize prosecutors' cases before deciding whether to send them to trial, but the absence of defense attorneys gives prosecutors substantial control over what the panels decide. The problem is that witnesses and victims are required to appear before grand juries, causing inconvenience and expense. Only seven other states have such a requirement, while 27 states allow a police officer to summarize witness statements.
In urging the amendment's approval in 2002, City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle estimated than 10,000 people a year are called upon to testify before grand juries. He estimated that the amendment could allow his office to save $500,000 if it were allowed instead to submit documents from which a judge could decide whether an alleged offender probably committed the offense.
The proposed amendment would allow Hawaii to join 10 states that now allow direct filing of felony charges with judges. The method, called information charging, typically involves a prosecutor submitting to a judge a police officer's affidavit showing the probability of the defendant's guilt along with any evidence from police reports that the defendant is innocent. The judge then decides whether the case should be sent to trial.
The amendment received 57.3 percent of the vote in the 2002 election. Defense attorneys and the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii challenged the amendment, and the Supreme Court ruled only that the Attorney General's Office had violated publication requirements leading up to the election.
BACK TO TOP |
Social Security promise
to workers must be keptELECTION-YEAR dynamics practically assure that neither the White House nor Congress will move to curb Social Security entitlements even as an accelerating federal deficit is eroding the structure of the nation's financial future.
THE ISSUE
Congress has been urged to cut Social Security benefits to rein in the federal deficit.
Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's proposition that Social Security and Medicare benefits be reduced to make ends meet, however, would place an inordinate burden on those who will the most vulnerable in their retirement years.
Although Greenspan had previously warned that Social Security costs would soar as baby boomers get older, his recommendation that Congress rein in the deficit by reducing entitlements and extending the age for retirement made a lot of politicians in Washington, not to mention older Americans, very nervous.
President Bush, who was not given a heads-up before Greenspan's testimony to a House committee this week, was careful in responding, saying benefits for retirees and those close to retiring should not be changed, although he did not rule out paring them in the future.
Bush repeated his proposal that younger workers be allowed to divert contributions into retirement accounts to assure they won't be squeezed when they leave the work force. The problem is that Social Security is structured so that those working now fund benefits for older Americans and if that revenue source is further reduced, cuts in entitlements would surely follow.
Tampering with Social Security -- often called the "third-rail" of politics -- has always been a touchy issue. The president is especially ticklish because the deficit has ballooned to more than $520 billion on his watch. In addition, the government last year shifted $1.4 trillion from the Social Security, technically owing the trust fund that amount. Yet, Bush wants his tax cuts, which would boost federal debt by $1.5 trillion through 10 years, be made permanent.
Greenspan, in support of the president, says something's got to give, and that reducing benefits is better than raising taxes, which he says will stifle economic growth. That's easy for him and many in Congress to say. Their wealth and retirement plans assure they will not have to depend on Social Security when they retire.
For less fortunate Americans, retirement security is more elusive as corporations cut back on pension plans, health care costs swell and fluctuations in the stock market batter investment accounts. With Social Security benefits averaging $922 a month, further decreases will jeopardize the well being of those on the lower economic rungs and leave the elderly with empty wallets and broken promises.
