Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): forbids preventative detention for public safety, “that is, imprisoning accused but unconvicted defendants because they may endanger the public.” Id. at 570-71, 621 A.2d at 1299. Although the constitutional bail provision had been amended in 1982, the Court noted that the amendment had been criticized because it did nothing to allow consideration of an accused’s danger to the community as a basis for pretrial detention. Noting that Proposal 7 was under consideration by the Legislature at that time, the Court stated, “Unless this new concept is enacted, we must continue to evaluate bail statutes as mandated by chapter II, § 40, and as discussed in our prior cases.” Id. at 573, 621 A.2d at 1300; see also State v. Madison, 163 Vt. 390, 396, 659 A.2d 124, 127-28 (1995) (Morse, J.) (<HOLDING>). My review of the drafts of Proposal 7, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that  3583e2 allows a district court to modify the conditions of supervised release without extending the term of that release (B) holding that evidence of a threat to a witness by the defendant is relevant as showing an attempt to prevent a witness from testifying and avoid punishment for the crime (C) holding that even though the victim has settled a civil claim and signed a release the state is not barred from seeking or the court from imposing reasonable restitution (D) holding state demonstrated conditions of release would not prevent defendant from posing a significant threat not only to the victim but to other young women (E) holding prohibition lies to prevent a lower tribunal from acting in excess of its jurisdiction but not to prevent an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction
Output (English): holding that even though the victim has settled a civil claim and signed a release the state is not barred from seeking or the court from imposing reasonable restitution