EDITORIAL
Information charging: First find out the facts

Not that the grand jury process is a paragon of impartiality. But we would posit that it's a lot safer than sending felony suspects to trial based on written police reports to a state judge.

In 2002, city Prosecutor Peter Carlisle and state Attorney General Mark Bennett managed to add to the ballot the question of whether to amend the state Constitution to allow prosecutors to charge felony suspects without presenting evidence before a judge or a grand jury.

They called it "information charging," and it would be alive today if the Hawai'i Supreme Court hadn't struck the law down on grounds that the state failed to publish the full text of the proposed amendment in a newspaper for a full month before the election, among other errors.

To get it back on the November ballot, the Legislature must pass another bill reauthorizing the vote. And it's doing just that. The bill has won the approval of the Senate and the House, and a final vote could come as soon as Monday.

Police and prosecutors say officers waste too much time in court for preliminary hearings or grand jury sessions. They say it would be so much more efficient if they could just make the charge by submitting an affidavit to a judge, who would use that information to determine probable cause.

Sure, it's more convenient. But what does it do to the cherished principle of due process? There's no question that it shifts the balance of power further into the hands of police and prosecutors.

As we said the last time this proposal was headed for a vote, these law enforcement agents — who are by no means infallible — would be able to trigger felony prosecution on the basis of uncontested documents. That's a heck of a lot of discretion.

The question is likely to come before us in November, and at the very least, we should inform ourselves fully about all the ramifications of information charging. Don't take our word for it and don't take their word for it. Check it out for yourself.