I think it should fall under the Bill of Rights ammendment that protects against "cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonably high bails. Denying a SUSPECT bail or bond runs counter to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" upon which our justice system was founded. Also, the increased powers of the police, which now allows them to enter a premise without knocking or identifying themselves as agents of the government further pushes us into a police state. Discuss.
What is the point of the bail system? How can you be held if you have not yet been convicted of anything? Like you said it goes counter to "innocent until proven guilty." It should be illegal to hold people until proven guilty.
Erm. So you think child molestors should be free to just roam about until trial?? I don't think so. Once you are charged with a crime, a judge may set bail or deny bail depending on the crime inwhich you are charged. This is to prevent charged criminals from 1) fleeing the state or country. 2)committing another crime while awaiting trial. It's not counter to "innocent to proven guilty"...it's just a process of the judicial system. Don't like it? Don't commit a crime and get tossed in the chokey.
*shakes head* Here goes another product of conservative brainwashing. Don't commit a crime? How about, 'don't go outside... stay locked in your homes'? Essentially what you're saying is don't place yourself in a circumstance where you could be accused of a crime.... which could entail staying away from society, being a recluse. Just because you're arrested by a police officer means you've committed a crime? Our Constituition guarantees us the right to bail... forgoing it is unconstitutional and representative of a police state where liberty is subverted and rights are denied.
First off, n00b. I'm not a conservative but I'm also not stupid enough to desire a system that would aid criminals. In most countries, you are guilty until proven innocent not the other way around. We are lucky that we live in a place where if there isn't enough evidence, a person can be released without charge..even if they killed 50 people. We live in a country where if a "T" isn't crossed, a criminal can be let loose. You think if innocent people are possibly being held without bail isn't fair? How about the thousands of rapes that go uncharged because there isn't any DNA evidence to charge someone with the rape they committed? How is that fair to the victims? I hate how our system is...criminals have more rights then the victims do. Child molestors get away with their heinous actions all the time because our courts cannot allow heresay evidence. A child, literally, has to be bruised and bleeding for a DA to make a rape/molestation charge stick. You sound embittered because you probably got busted for posession or something. Boo-fucking-hoo.
I may be wrong, but I think that preventing the commision of another crime is NOT sufficiant to hold someone without bail. The law on that has been changing. Bail is to insure that the accused attends the trial.
Anybody that believes that this country's judicial system considers someone innocent until proven guilty lives in a fantasy world, and has obviously had very little contact with it other than what they've read in books and what little they hear about it in the news media. The judicial and 'criminal justice' system in this country is about money, period. Anybody that can't see that either doesn't know enough about the system or simply doesn't care.
Um... Aren't you letting your emotions getting in the way of what's put in the constitution? This may be an old post, but I'm just saying, the state pays for a criminal to be judged in the court of law. If you want to be the hangman, you should become the attorney or judge. Simple answer to all this is that I learned that denying bail is unconstitutional.
