Replies

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.