SPOKANE, Wash – Judge Julie McKay from the Spokane County Superior Court says although the decision to release or assign bail to someone brought before her courtroom may seem fairly simple, Judges and Commissioners are required to follow a set of criteria that is based on the Constitution.
“What might seem like an easy decision to most, in other words, well, the police picked somebody up, they arrested them, the court found probable cause, which is a very low-level finding, but found probable cause for the charge. Why are they being released? Well, because that’s what the law tells us to do,” says Judge McKay.
She added that every case across her desk is unique, “you can fit everything into a certain category, and you make a decision based upon that, but everything is very fact-specific and fact-based because each individual who comes in front of you is different.”
Spokane County Sheriff John Nowells is frustrated and says the problem is not with the criteria but what he believes is a growing trend within the court, “I think that over time, it’s become fashionable for them to interpret those rules more in favor of the defendant than it is public safety.”
Judge McKay’s response takes exception to that assertion.
“I have, frankly, that’s a good one. I have no idea what that means. Fashionable to side with somebody. We are in a position of being neutral decision-makers. We’re not supposed to side with anybody. We’re not supposed to side with the police or law enforcement, and we’re not supposed to side with the defendant. We are supposed to take everyone’s information, put it through the rules that we are required to use to evaluate those facts, and then render a decision based upon our judicial opinion as to what is best so fashionable to side with a defendant. I don’t even know what that means,” said McKay.
When we have spoken to law enforcement in the past, they have often referenced the “revolving door,” meaning offenders brought before the court are released, then reoffending—frustrating law enforcement. Judge McKay says that’s just the criminal justice system.
“When law enforcement is thinking that the system is failing, no, the system is working, maybe not as fast as they’d like it to, and there are many occasions where I think that this system doesn’t go as fast as anyone would like it to.”
We asked Judge McKay about these re-offenders and how much their criminal history plays a role in the court’s decision, “the previous offenses, while they show a lack of being able to follow the rules that have been set up by society, they aren’t necessarily something where Judicial Officers too terribly concerned about that. So yes, there is a weighting of what that previous criminal history is. Versus what it is that you’re looking at, in front of you, and then life circumstances that may or may not be presented.”
Some lawmakers say that if the problem continues, a change to the criteria may need to be discussed. However, Judge Mckay says that could be a problem.
“The underlying presumption of innocence is in this particular circumstance is what we are relying upon, and that would take a constitutional change as well as a rule change, legislative change. So the thinking goes a lot deeper than just saying, well, if the revolving door continues, then we have to change things. It would be a fundamental, really fundamental change to how we do things.”
Judge McKay understands the frustration, especially from those directly affected by the court’s decisions, “when you’re the victim of a crime, that conviction has yet to be obtained. It’s really frustrating, and I understand that the judicial system is really frustrating and that that justice that people are seeking just isn’t occurring, really the way they want it to.”
We asked Judge Mckay if she believed the system was broken, “I don’t, I really don’t. What I do believe is that the system is very overburdened by the case numbers; it just can’t sustain that, and I think that’s part of the problem. The level of service based upon the resources that we currently have Just don’t fit, and we need help. We need more resources, but those are not forthcoming at this point in time.”
Judge McKay emphasized that her role, like any position, is not exempt from error, “At the end of the day, we are human beings as judges making decisions. With regards to the acts of other human beings and, I don’t know that anybody can get away from that.”
