Well of course the big story in New Mexico which should be a bigger story around the United States but is not thanks to the mainstream media's love of Muslim terrorists, is the judge in northern New Mexico that released those charged in this case on $20,000 signature bail. That means they don't have to put up any money to get out they just have to pay $20,000 if they don't show up for trial. It will of course remain to be seen whether they do show up for trial but that's another issue.

Time to bring a little sanity to the discussions I've seen on social media, letters to the editor, and in discussions around town. Prior to 2016 the New Mexico State Constitution required that defendants be granted bail unless they had committed a capital crime. In 2016 we voted to amend the constitution to allow judges to hold dangerous defendants without bond. The problem is that there is not a clear definition of when a defendant might be a danger to the community. As I understand it the New Mexico State Supreme Court has heard only 3 cases since that change was made and the definition is still not clear enough. You might believe that these men are a danger to the community and I have to say I don't disagree with that assessment. But there is more to the story.

Judge Backus may not have had much of a choice in this case. The defendants were charged only with child abuse and abduction. The children in question have been removed from the household or compound. The defendants were not charged with any crimes related to terrorism, terrorist threats, or conspiring to commit any kind of the community at large. The testimony heard at trial did not make it clear that they were plotting to commit any act which they have been accused of in the media reports. Testimony was given that the children were being trained by the adults to commit such acts, but the children denied that as did others. The judge felt that the testimony provided by the prosecutors did not meet the burden necessary to find that the accused were dangerous. Having read some of the testimony, I can see how she came to that conclusion.

I think the judge would have reached a different conclusion had the prosecutors charged the defendants with crimes other than child abuse or abduction. So, you must ask why the prosecution did not levy such charges. Was it because there was not enough evidence to sustain the charges? Or maybe New Mexico laws weren't clear enough to allow them to file such charges? Why didn't the federal government file charges against them? The federal laws may be more clear than state laws and easier to sustain a charge related to terroristic activities.

One might also wonder why Judge Backus set the bail so low or only required a signature bond? Clearly the remains of one child were found in the compound and it was most likely the son of one of the leaders of that group. Isn't that enough to try and protect the children from further harm? Couldn't she have set the bail higher or required a cash bond in order to obtain their freedom? One might think so.

Again, the prosecutors had not yet charged any defendant with homicide or manslaughter or similar crime because they have not concluded their investigation into how the child may have died. There was some evidence presented during the hearing that the child had a history of seizures and he may have died because of his physical ailments rather than neglect or other actions taken by any of the defendants.

One thing remains clear, this type of hearing generally only takes a few minutes, and it should not have taken eight hours. Simple fact that these men had more likely than not abused the children in their care and that one of the men had abducted his son from Georgia in violation of court order should be enough to have kept them without bond. It is not clear enough and that gave the judge an opportunity to let them go. In my opinion by holding an 8 hour hearing she was probably taking advantage of the publicity that was going to surround this whole situation. There really was no reason to conduct such a lengthy hearing. But the voters in her jurisdiction will have an opportunity to tell her what they think of the job she is doing on their behalf. It also gives us the opportunity to change the law in New Mexico if we believe dangerous criminals are being let back onto our streets.