Posted on 07/13/2018 10:43:56 AM PDT by re_tail20
So, not offering bail at all is the new work around to forbidding excessive bail?
That’s like, oh, I don’t know, requiring people to register their guns online but not having a website for them to do it.
It’s okay because it’s just an administrative concern and they weren’t INTENDING to make you a criminal because you can’t obey their regulation. *nudge*wink*
Yup. No one is advocating the release of violent offenders back into the community.
But everyone else could stay with their family pending trial.
Saves taxpayers money and makes sure people get a fair trial.
Suspect in Waterloo homicides arrested twice for domestic violence in June
Oh, my bad. I misread.
Let’s not have bail AT ALL.
How Open Borders of the judge....
OMG, you mean if I go to jail, I can't bring my kids with me? They are going to 'rip them out of my arms'??? Oh, the horror!
Tell that to the law-abiding citizens of Waterloo, NY.
Then keep them all in jail in solitary confinement 2 hours from their lawyers like you’re doing to Paul Manafort.
Here’s an idea - don’t commit any crimes and you won’t be arrested.
California is a failed state, and it has affected your thinking, sounds to me like.
Just put explosive collars around their necks. If they fail to show up for the hearing, just push the button.
If they start putting rich guys and girls in jail with no bond than maybe there will be prison reform. I think that’s his logic.
They are trying to do away with the requirement of bail.
They want everyone released on their own recognizance.
What could possibly go wrong?
Sort of smells like the old libtard one size fits all solution: If it doesn’t meet my utopian standards, then let’s apply Haitian standards.
Women and children of bail bondsmen hardest hit.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Illinois bail bondsmen not concerned that will happen here, since we have no bail bondsmen in Illinois.
Do they just set bail low, or do people find that they usually can’t make bail?
a better question is he white?
10% of bail to be posted by the accused.
Billionaire Harvey Weinstein gets a multiple rape rap and his bail is a million bucks...That would be like charging me a dollar for bail...But no, I’d have to mortage my house and car and perhaps my relatives would have to do the same, for me...
I think his point is that the Judge should make the determination as to the likelihood of the defendant returning for trial based on facts presented.
Low risk - let him/her out; high risk - detain them.
Don’t make it an economic issue (afford or can’t afford bail).
Clearly, the ones that get out on bail have a higher reason to come back (the 12%). That works.
Issue is the ones that are a low flight risk but have no money. Is it fair to them? Obviously not. However, I query whether someone without means for bail can get together a story strong enough to convince a Judge that they will return. Likely not?
Concept makes sense; but the first one let out without bail that kills someone or commits a serious crime; Judge will have different approach second time: back to the drawing board.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.