A chara, The people and groups defending the right to bail are neither soft on crime, nor do they fit into the do-gooder category as outlined by the baby Blueshirts of Young Fine Gael. Indeed the right-to-bail campaigns have all outlined a series of legislative and administrative procedures which would be much more effective in protecting our society from crime than the proposed referendum.
The anti-bail people make much of the claim that they speak for victims. (I think they are merely exploiting victims.) As a committed "No" voter, it is clear to me that there is definitely one category of victim which this referendum will not help - namely, the victims of a miscarriage of justice.
Where is the protection for people remanded in jail who are subsequently found innocent of all charges by the court? Will the State restore the reputation, the employment status, the lost wages, the family bonds, the trust of neighbours of such a victim?
The individuals and organisations who are advocating a "No" vote are concerned for these people who will wrongfully be locked up for months. In England, where bail can be refused on preventive grounds since 1976, the matter has been highly controversial. The number of people who have been denied bail, and have subsequently not received a custodial sentence, is a matter of serious concern in that jurisdiction. The fact that even under our present bail laws a very substantial number of people denied bail do not receive a custodial sentence makes one wonder what would happen if the right to bail is curtailed as proposed. - Yours, etc.,
Secretary, The Civil Liberties Committee, The Workers' Party, 28 Gardiner Place, Dublin 1.