Bail needs to be set according to what is a meaningful amount for the person making bail.
Like when Hillary eventually gets arrested her bail shouldn’t be any less than $100 million because for that paltry amount of money she’s a flight risk.
For a homeless guy $250 might be too much.
Just let them go, with a promise to return. After all, we know criminals are always honest and are no risk to society.
I’ll be impressed when they finally acknowledge that putative damages are by definition and intent excessive.
So, replace bail with a speedy trial...48 hours maximum until the initial hearing, one week to get to trial. Or let the liberals who are whining about the treatment of the “poor” front them the bail money.
Okay, let ‘em out, but the have to stay with Democratic policy makers.
The VIII Amendment reads, in its entirety:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I think it is arguable that any amount of bail which is beyond the defendant's ability to pay is by definition "excessive."
Obviously, if a defendant is perceived by the court to be a danger to society based on preliminary evidence, there is a concern about letting him or her out of jail until a trial is held and concluded.
But the Constitutional solution in that case is for the judge to rule that the defendant be remanded to custody until there is a trial and a verdict.
Heck my county has “diversions” you can buy from the powers that be to completely ignore and scrub from the records any criminal act you have committed, for a price.
OK, how about a “bail collar”? Like a dog training collar that zaps him when he misbehaves, GPS equipped. If the perp fails to show up at the appointed time and place for a hearing, press the button and remind him. And if he’s not allowed to leave the area the GPS will zap him if he does and broadcast his location. Make sure he knows that it will explode if he tries to cut it off or otherwise remove it, too.
The bail is usually low enough for someone to spring these thugs.
Wow, they really do want all the felons and yet-to-be-convicted felons out and voting, don’t they?
Can’t afford bail? then put them on public work detail
so they want to do what they do with illegals. Catch them and then let them go hoping the illegals or criminals can then turn up to a court date. Yep that has worked so good for the legal immigration system. NOT.
That’s right so if a serial killer or a mass murderer (say Dylan Root) is poor then I say we should just let them out until trial because bail is so bad
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’.
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.
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?
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.
In a rational world, if this stands, then people will simply be held in jail with no bail and no way out.
Memo to the DOJ: how about Ryan, Aamon and Clven Bundy being held in jail for minor crimes with no bail you Commie thugs!