MILWAUKEE — Ending cash bail has come up again and again in TV ads against Democratic Senate candidate Mandela Barnes.
TMJ4's Chief Political Reporter Charles Benson looks at a claim by Barnes in this week's PolitiFact Wisconsin.
The case against Darrel Brooks has played out in a Waukesha courtroom while political ads against Democrat Mandela Barnes show images of the Christmas parade tragedy.
"In the US Senate race, Republicans have been unloading on Democrat Mandela Barnes and his support for ending cash bail, using TV ads to toss in the specter of last year's Waukesha Christmas parade attack," said Greg Borowski with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
The situation with Brooks was low bail, not no bail. PolitiFact Wisconsin looked at Barnes' response that under his plan Brooks would not have been released.
"Barnes says the attacks are way off the mark. He's claiming that under his plan to end cash bail, the Waukesha perpetrator wouldn't have been released," said Borowski.
Let's look at the difference between cash bail and ending cashing bail.
"First, under a cash bail system, if a person pays the bail, he or she is released," Borowski said.
A no-bail system would be similar to what happens in federal court - where cash bail is not used.
Barnes's proposal would have allowed judges to hold a defendant if there was "clear and convincing evidence."
"Judges would have the ability to hold the person they deemed to be dangerous if they were to be released. In the Brooks case, Barnes argues and experts we talked with agree such evidence was there," Borowski said. "After all, just days earlier, he had been arrested on domestic violence charges in which he allegedly tried to run his girlfriend over with an SUV."
So, here's the caveat, PolitiFact Wisconsin says it's impossible to know with certainty how a judge would have ruled under a no-cash bail system.
The claim by Barnes that Brooks would not have been released under his plan was rated Mostly True.
