Posted on 01/09/2002 5:47:25 PM PST by Jean S
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court Wednesday declared unconstitutional a law that denies bail hearings to incarcerated immigrants fighting deportation.
The ruling, binding on the nine western states under the supervision of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, does not address immigrants detained following the Sept. 11 attacks. The case addresses immigrants who were convicted of a crime, served their sentence and are detained while the government tries to deport them -- a process that can last as long as three years.
The circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington
Last month, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a similar ruling. In 1999, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled otherwise. The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to review the issue when there is a split among circuits.
The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit said thousands of immigrants fighting their deportation under these circumstances are entitled to a bail hearing. The court, however, stopped short of saying the immigrants are entitled to bail.
"We hold only that such an alien has a right to an individualized determination of a right to bail, tailored to his or her particular circumstances," the court wrote.
Generally, bail is denied when a defendant is considered a flight risk or a danger to society.
The case decided Wednesday was brought by Hyung Joon Kim, a U.S. resident and a citizen of Korea. When his three-year term for a California petty theft conviction expired, the government detained him while starting deportation proceedings. Kim sued, arguing the 1998 federal law denying bail hearings was unconstitutional.
The majority of cases are pro-bono.
Get a grip.
Well, the answer is that the ones with ties to organized crime will find someone to post bail for them & will be released back into the general population.
The ones without criminal friends will have been financially devastated by the prison term and will be held until they can be deported...
Liberal thinking at it best.
Other than being in a coma (where a bail hearing would not do much good anyway), I cannot.
I can, however, imagine an adenda-driven ideologue liberal judge allowing bail to obvious flight risks.
As such, it would have been common sense and cost effective for the courts to say no here.
I don't know how the Supreme Court will rule, but I believe this one should be overturned.
In other words, are you suggesting that bail should always be granted?
I'm always amazed at the speed people jump into the fray.
Let's keep things in context, ok?
To wit:
| [edited - 9th US Circuit Court finding]: "We hold only that such an alien has a right to an individualized determination of a right to bail, tailored to his or her particular circumstances," the court wrote. Generally, bail is denied when a defendant is considered a flight risk or a danger to society. The case decided Wednesday was brought by Hyung Joon Kim, a U.S. resident and a citizen of Korea. When his three-year term for a California petty theft conviction expired, the government detained him while starting deportation proceedings. Kim sued, arguing the 1998 federal law denying bail hearings was unconstitutional. |
When the crime is not determined of "moral turpitude",
deportation can be argued more securely.
In any event, our Constitution provides for due process
[and all it's legal insinuations], and it does so for all on our soil.
We either dispense our Constitutional rights selectively,
disregarding our founder's intent, or support it in it's full.
I do not believe we should tear our Nation's basic fibers
apart out of prejudiced fear.
Thanks
The government is attempting to find reason to deport them; there is no reason to deport them unless a reason is found to deport them.I said this logic could be applied to bail in general. Let me rewrite the above quote to show how:
The government is attemption to find reason to imprison them; there is no reason to imprison them unless a reason is found to imprison them.Can you think of a possible circumstance where an immigrant facing deportation proceedings is not a flight risk?
re:
"......Can you think of a possible circumstance where an
immigrant facing deportation proceedings is not a flight risk?......"
Well Hugh, to go along with the ride...
Can you think of any possible circumstances where any
citizen facing incarceration after trial, should not be considered
a flight risk?
Why have bail at all?
Read the court finding again, and put into the proper damned
context, willya?
We don't go throwing people in prison while we go out and
try to figure out a reason to throw them in prison [not for
long, anyway].
When we strip that mandate away from it's Constitutional
roots, we are indeed -ALL- in one heap of trouble.
Thanks.
Can you think of any possible circumstances where any citizen facing incarceration after trial, should not be considered a flight risk?Certainly.
If I am facing a charge where the maximum jail term is 10 years, but I know that if I skip bail I face further charges that could put me away for 30 years, then I am not likely to run, especially if I have a job and if I have a family here to support.
However, if I am here on a visa, and I face being deported from this country if I don't skip out but I might be able to stay if I do skip out, I think it is reasonable to assume there is a flight risk.
The "rule by judicial fiat" is very important to the American Socialists - it's the ONLY way they can force their agenda. They could NEVER pass it throught Congress, and they could NEVER campaign for it with the voters.
And worst of all - They do their foul deeds largely ANONYMOUSLY! Everyone can name the Marxist-Socialists in Congress, but who knows the names of these Judges? The Socialists in Congress are not that powerful - they can't pass a tenth of what they want. But control of the largely unknown Judiciary gets them the othe nine-tenths. That's why they are sitting on Bush's Judicial Appointees.
Indeed, this system serves to free up LEOs for other duties for which only they, in general, have been sworn and specifically trained. Since the "recovery" of bail "skips" is agreed to under the terms of the bail bond agreement of the defendant and the bondsman and, accordingly, is a civil rather than a criminal matter, extradiction proceedings generally are not necessary. Many LEOs complain that "bounty hunters" have more latitude in the recovery of fugitives than they do (under Taylor v. Taintor, 1783, in the U.S. Supreme Court) but often fail to appreciate that such an arrangement in effects reduces their bulging caseloads of fugitive warrants.
Ethical bondsmen contract only wiith recovery agents who have been trained by recognized professionals in this particular occupation and possess the requisite experience and clean backgrounds. And an increasing number of states are regulating the recovery agents' trade....
Very crazy. If they are "flight risk" and escape the country they avoided being deported, yes?
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.