American system of bail is unconstitutional says Obama Justice Department

The Coach's Team ^ | 8/23/16 | Publius Huldah

[Terabitten]

I think he meant 48 hours after arrest.

[Rurudyne]

Yeah .., you know, I sometimes think this iPad’s auto-correct is out to get me....

[Gen.Blather]

“I think he meant 48 hours after arrest.”

That was my interpretation also. Arrests don’t always occur because the prosecution is finished preparing the case. Frequently, people are arrested because they are suspects long before the case is ready for court. What do you do with them?

An associate’s daughter was living with a man who killed somebody. He has been out on bail for five years. The case still hasn’t come to trial. A few weeks ago he went nuts and beat her to within an inch of her life. He bit the furniture and was making animal noises. Apparently he was taking a hallucinogenic drug. Finally, his bail was revoked and he is in jail. Should he be let go simply because he can’t make bail or because the judge won’t set bail? (I fault the woman for having anything to do with this low-life. But I’m guessing she is into the drug lifestyle and people like him are the set pieces that allow you to recognize what they are; lowlife scum.)

[ctdonath2]

Question is whether “excessive” is relative to the accused’s ability to pay, or the severity of the crime.

[ctdonath2]

Fair enough, amounting to electronic monitor house arrest. Main point is to ensure the accused shows up for trial.

[Nifster]

It is....it happens to me all too often. Usually when I am half awake....or not paying attention

[Terry L Smith]

Has anybody thought this out, as an attack on the bail bonds industry?

Anybody, anywhere, in the U.S., that cannot pay the bail, has available to them, a bail bondsman.

So, now, with the unofficial word being, no bail to be charged’, translates to ‘no further business for bondsmen’.

[imardmd1]

This is so illogical! The point is that if arrested, you CAN ans WILL be held unril arraignment to see if the charges are valid. Then, if the grand jury or judge determines that the charges have substance, then if you are too poor to meet the bailbondsman's fee for bail, then: (1) you won't lose much; and (2) if you flee, then you wouldn't be losing much either. So it is wise to keep you until the charges are settled or dropped. The issue here is that a speedy trial should take place.

And if one is able to pay bail (which is returned when you do, why idn't this just as unfair to the truly innocent detainee and as damaging as it would be to the "too poor" detainee?

Often the issue is only whether or not you will cop a plea for lesser charges, anyway.

And Obama's "justice" is not Constitutional at all.

[Robert357]

Let's see if I have this correct. A terrorist, murderer, or drug dealer is caught, brought before a judge and the judge is told that the accused is a flight risk...... The Department of Injustice says high bail that the accused can't afford is unconstitutional? What the he*l just changed in our legal system?

[winner3000]

First Obama decides to legislate from the Presidency (instead of Congress). Now he gets to decide what’s constitutional (the Courts’ job).

So much for checks and balances! Who again said he’s not a dictator?

[WilliamCooper1]

The point of bail is to ensure that the defendant has an incentive to return for trial. Setting bail at $1,000 for a homeless man is unrealistic.

But, I’ll do you this: From my experience, poor people are resourceful in finding bail money and attorney’s fees when they are facing jail time...just sayin’.

[I want the USA back]

Bail should not be based on money. Someone who is a danger should not be bailed out. The rich should not be allowed to walk the streets simply because they have money. In this, I AGREE WITH HIM!
Yes, it’s unconstitutional.

[napscoordinator]

I think bail can be tossed out. Many have to use their home and get a equity line or worse. Not worth the trouble glfor the courts or families.

[napscoordinator]

Why? How do you know they are guilty? Sound dumb to me.

[Defiant]

Well, not exactly. Bail is to be an amount that will ensure the accused’s attendance at trial (except in case of danger to the public, where they can hold them without bail). A rich person requires a larger amount to guarantee their attendance than a poor person. Also, a heinous crime, where the accused is facing a long sentence, makes one more prone to want to flee, so that might require a higher bail, too. There is an entire body of case law that looks at all the factors and determines what is excessive. The DOJ is trying to overturn 200+ years of jurisprudence with a race and class based analysis only.

[arthurus]

In a rational world, if this stands, then people will simply be held in jail with no bail and no way out.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Memo to the DOJ: how about Ryan, Aamon and Clven Bundy being held in jail for minor crimes with no bail you Commie thugs!

[AFreeBird]

We’ll need a Judge Roy Bean.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If bail is unconstitutional, I guess fines are out, too. /s

[Rurudyne]

Question: does “Arkancide” really have to be on Hillary’s dime?

At this point I really wouldn’t put it past Obama to burn down the Capitol building, ala Reichstag fire, blame it on “Christians” (no way he’d blame it on Muslims) and declare martial law.

Nor would I put it past him to stage various assassinations come election time to either hold onto power personally or put Hillary’s VP candidate (who is healthy and would be able to serve out two full terms) into office.