[Maceman]

I can actually see a Constitutional basis for this argument.

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.

[himno hero]

We can see what we want and make an argument out of anything.

We have been told that Obama is an expert on constitutions.

Yes he has studied ours for a minute or two and has concluded he needs to replace it with what he knew as an adolescent.. and what he grew up with. One that he knows has all the answers.

Sharia.

So now, he’s going to have his people pivot towards a sharia complaint constitution and away from one based in a Judeo Christian heritage.

Thus Hillary Clinton pushing the UN resolution 1618 and giving our internet to the OIC’s “UN”

so we can be censored again.

They have to make us more sharia compliant.

[JimRed]

...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Note the words cruel AND unusual. Hanging alive in an iron framework on the gibbet and dying over days or a week was cruel, but not unusual.

[ctdonath2]

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

[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’.