Andrea Yates to get bail. Set at 200K. (travesty)

Fox News Alert | 2-1-06 | self

[wardaddy]

Andrea Yates granted bail by judge. Bail set at 200K. Husband is seeking the 20K for bondsman.

Breaking from Fox.

[TKDietz]

In my state at least a person has an absolute right to reasonable bail in all but capital cases, and only then if the "proof is evident or the presumption great." The sole purpose of bail is to insure that the accused will appear at court. It is not to keep him from committing further crimes. He is presumed innocent. The only appropriate questions at a bond hearing have to do with issues related to whether the person is likely to show up for trial. The court should only consider things like the accused ties to the community, whether he has a job or family keeping him there, whether he has failed to appear at court in the past, and other things like that that give the court an indication as to whether the person will return to court for his trial. One of the things also considered are his charges and whether a conviction is likely. The more serious the charges and more likely the sentence will be steep, the more the court might think the person is a flight risk. In real life prosecutors do tend to talk about the risk that a person will re-offend and judges tend to be receptive to these arguments, but technically that is not an appropriate consideration, at least in my state. In practice though a lot of the really bad guys who are likely to re-offend while awaiting trial tend to have bonds set so high they can't make them. The amount of the bail is strictly within the judge's discretion.

I'm not against denying bond to some sociopath like Charles Manson. He'd most likely be denied bond in my state, or it would be set so incredibly high he'd never make it. I'm also not to worried though about Andrea Yates being allowed to bond with the condition that she remain in a mental hospital until trial. She'll be brought back for her trial, and she's not going to be out on the streets in the mean time. This is not the big deal people are making it out to be.

People tend to have the wrong idea about what bail is for. They flip out when people get busted for something and then bond right out of jail. The thing is, they want these people punished before they are ever convicted. That's wrong. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Sometimes people who are completely innocent sit in jail for months and months unable to make bond. They tend to lose everything. They can't make their car payments. They can't pay their rent. They get evicted and their possessions sold to cover past rent. Often their car is in impound and they end up losing that too because they can't pay the expensive daily storage fees. They can't get around to prepare their defense, track down witnesses, obtain necessary documents, and that sort of thing. It's terribly unfair to keep someone locked up who hasn't even been convicted of a crime.

Without access to reasonable bond, the presumption of innocence loses its meaning. In my state money bail is technically supposed to be a last resort when a judge "determines that no other conditions will reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant in court." Most really should be released on their own recognizance, according to our laws. In practice though most have had to post fairly high bonds around here unless the jail is too full. The more serious the crime and the greater threat to the community a person appears to be, the higher the judges here tend to set bond. My guess is its like that most places even though most have similar laws with respect to bail.

[luckystarmom]

Well, maybe the men in this group need to listen to us women.

When a doctor tells you that your wife should not have anymore children because she gets depression, maybe you shouldn't get your wife knocked-up again.

Also, as a mother if my husband had attempted suicide, and I was keeping knives away from him because he might kill himself, there is no way that I would leave my children alone with him for even 5 minutes.

The woman was sick and needs to be held responsible for her crime, but her husband failed in his duty to keep his children safe.

[luckystarmom]

You didn't know that the husband and other relatives were worried that she was going to kill herself.

When you find that out, you just wonder why anyone would leave their kids alone with her.

I feel like no one was really looking out for the children.

Oh well, hindsight. It would be nice to prevent something like this in the future.

[wardaddy]

thinking emotively.

that's me...let's get married..lol

[wardaddy]

You gals should start a Katie Beaver fan club ......no doubt the husband is odd but you guys are reaching because the bias of yer DNA

cc, Dennis...the new kinder gentler face of conservatism...great ain't it amigo?

[wardaddy]

BTW....LSM....after reading more of your posts...I apologize if that last one was tacky....you are polite.

My mistake

[luckystarmom]

It's just such a horrendous crime. You just feel so sorry for the kids.

[dennisw]

When you kill five children you kill five little angels. Andrea Yates is in dire need of the death penalty and I would do it myself. Put me on the firing squad, my conscience would be clear. I would be the hangman too. I would view it as an honor especially in view of all the weak minded conservatives here who want to cut her slack

[TKDietz]

I'm not a gal, I have no idea who Katie Beaver is, and I don't know why you are getting your panties all in a wad over anything I've said. Look, I don't want this crazy lady out on the streets. I just want her to get a fair trial. She's a loony and they have her in the loony bin. You're safe. Before it's all over and done with she'll probably get convicted and sent to prison the rest of her life. In real life insanity defenses almost never succeed. Grow up.

[MeanWestTexan]

That would presumably violate the don't ask, don't tell policy.

[wardaddy]

well shucks....don't mean to be going caker in my old age..sorry

[operation clinton cleanup]

Who or what paid the bail???

[wardaddy]

Before it's all over and done with she'll probably get convicted and sent to prison the rest of her life

you left out and "and find a nice lesbian lover to share her life behind bars with and do macrame and play scrabble"

[wardaddy]

i don't know...folks here claim she goes to a psyche ward now (?)

[luckystarmom]

I'm all for the death penalty (look at my first post about Richard Farley). However, there is a clear distinction between a person who is crazy and a cold-blooded murderer.

I don't think crazy people should get the death penalty, just like I don't think mentally retarded people should either.

[dennisw]

No way. Someone who kills five children needs to die. Needs to be tried and executed. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Andrea Yates. Why are you in awe of her?

[TKDietz]

Here's more on that: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1570311/posts?page=8

[dennisw]

I don't think crazy people should get the death penalty, just like I don't think mentally retarded people should either.

LOL  That sounds like affirmative action. You kill five children and you have forfeited your life.

[wardaddy]

I saw Nancy Grace (who I'm ambivalent about) fired up over this.

The walk off rate at that mental joint is over 50% and is rather social for someone facing a 5 count felony murder.

Nuts....worse than I feared actually.

[dennisw]

All that's irrelevant. Andrea Yates should be on death row. Five children were murdered by her hand. I could care less if she's mentally ill and deranged