Is bail granted fairly?

When a potential poor client wavered on the fee, he said, “If my fee is too high for you, go down the street to so-and-so’s office. He’s cheap, and you get what you pay for.”

ROB (2) the likelihood that the person will not be a danger to anyone if the person remains out of physical custody.

astradt1 wrote:

ROB (2) the likelihood that the person will not be a danger to anyone if the person remains out of physical custody.

Surely that could be seen as a presumption of guilt?

=\"RockOnBrother" wrote:
When a potential poor client wavered on the fee, he said, “If my fee is too high for you, go down the street to so-and-so’s office. He’s cheap, and you get what you pay for.”

Shirina wrote:
Which is one of the many ways our system is flawed.

Sandusky is no threat to society.

astradt1 wrote:

Sandusky is no threat to society.

So this man is now watched 24/7 whilst out on bail?

astradt1 wrote:
Were his 'alleged' Victims asked if they felt safe with him being out on bail?

The fact that Sandusky is out on bail means that the presiding judge, considering all pertaining to Sandusky’s bail, has determined that Sandusky is no threat to society.
[/color]

"What if I don't agree?"

Shirina wrote:I don't know ... I noticed that two of the three were bailed out but the third was not.

I really find the idea of bail repugnant to our legal system. A person's freedom should not be bought, and I think it's completely unfair that one of the kids has to sit behind bars while the others go free simply because he wasn't the daughter of a millionaire. They should all go free while awaiting trial - or none of them should. They all committed the same crime so they should all face freedom or incarceration together. Money should have NOTHING to do with it.

I know this is a side-issue and not directly related to the story, but the idea of bail has always bothered me.

• The possibillity that you will abscond
  Commit further crimes whilst on bail
  Interfere with witnesses
  Nature and seriousness of the offence
  Character of the defendant, associations and community ties of the defendant
  Defendants Bail record
  Strength of evidence

oftenwrong wrote:You don't need a Maths degree to realise that keeping people in a police-cell awaiting trial is prohibitively expensive if there is a reasonable expectation of their turning up at Court in due course. In the particular circumstances of hundreds of "accused" being processed almost simultaneously, there has to be a pragmatic attitude towards remand in custody.

keenobserver1 wrote:
For this bail is granted not on your abillity to pay, but based on -

• The possibillity that you will abscond
  
• Commit further crimes whilst on bail
  
• Interfere with witnesses
  
• Nature and seriousness of the offence
  
• Character of the defendant, associations and community ties of the defendant
  
• Defendants Bail record
  
• Strength of evidence
  

So where two have been released and the other remanded, there is the possibillity that the two had no previous criminal record and the other did. It would appear to be poor journalism highlighting that the girl is from a wealthy family and implying that this is the reason that she was allowed bail, rather than reporting on the actual reason that bail was denied for the other party.

Filthy rich folks have just as an inalienable right to liberty, and thus reasonable bail, as destitute folks.

RockOnBrother wrote:

keenobserver1 wrote:
For this bail is granted not on your abillity to pay, but based on -

• The possibillity that you will abscond
  
• Commit further crimes whilst on bail
  
• Interfere with witnesses
  
• Nature and seriousness of the offence
  
• Character of the defendant, associations and community ties of the defendant
  
• Defendants Bail record
  
• Strength of evidence
  

So where two have been released and the other remanded, there is the possibillity that the two had no previous criminal record and the other did. It would appear to be poor journalism highlighting that the girl is from a wealthy family and implying that this is the reason that she was allowed bail, rather than reporting on the actual reason that bail was denied for the other party.

"Reasonable" is the key concept; all criteria you've listed are reasonable.

To discriminate for or against a person based upon wealth or lack of wealth is unreadonable. Filthy rich folks have just as an inalienable right to liberty, and thus reasonable bail, as destitute folks. In Texas, Cullen Bryant was held without bail. In California, OJ Simpson was held without bail.

oftenwrong wrote:Name a judicial system anywhere in The World designed to favour the Poor.

Whether or not you go free while awaiting your trial should NOT be decided upon based on your wealth - or lack thereof. The concept of bail should not exist. The court should rule that the accused be released or held based on keenobserver1's seven points. That's it. Two choices - go free or be held. There should not be any money involved in this process. At all. Period.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Filthy rich folks have just as an inalienable right to liberty, and thus reasonable bail, as destitute folks.

Shirina wrote:
The problem isn't that filthy rich folks do not have an inalienable right to liberty ... it's that destitute folks do NOT have that inalienable right.

In seeking to correct this wrong, it’s important to keep in mind that filthy rich folks are not getting what they do not deserve, they’re getting what everyone deserves, reasonable bail in such a fashion as not to disparage the inalienable rights of either filthy rich folks or destitute folks to liberty.

Rock On Brother wrote:
In seeking to correct this wrong, it’s important to keep in mind that filthy rich folks are not getting what they do not deserve, they’re getting what everyone deserves, reasonable bail in such a fashion as not to disparage the inalienable rights of either filthy rich folks or destitute folks to liberty.

Shirina wrote:
"Equal" is not synonymous with "fair." Applying a law equally does not automatically guarantee fairness ... or liberty.

Shirina wrote:
Imagine two men accused of the same crime. Both are relatively equal in every way except that one is rich and the other is poor. Both men have no criminal records, neither man is a flight risk. Both men's cases are of equal strength, etc.

Shirina wrote:
The judge sees the equality of both men and sets the bail at $100,000 for each. The rich man, being rich, finds the bail most reasonable and has it posted within an hour. He's free. The poor man couldn't come up with $100,000 if his life depended on it, so he gets to sit in jail.

Shirina wrote:
… the law was applied equally, but the outcome is most assuredly less than equal ... and certainly not fair…

keenobserver1 wrote:
A similar discussion is happening on another thread where the issue is the UK governments Poll Tax of the '80's, in applying it equally to all ,the poorer members of society were not treated fairly.

1. Poll tax laws were used in my country to effectively disenfranchise Black Americans;
   
   
2. I’m part Celt;
   
   
3. Four Scots died at the Alamo to secure my sovereign state’s independence from Santa Anna’s Mexico.
   

I’ve yet to see a poll tax used for anything other than ignoble purposes.

Shirina wrote:
I've already heard talk by some right-wingers (not actual politicians, just forum clowns) who want a poll tax here in the US as high as $3000.

RockOnBrother wrote:

keenobserver1 wrote:
A similar discussion is happening on another thread where the issue is the UK governments Poll Tax of the '80's, in applying it equally to all ,the poorer members of society were not treated fairly.

Keenobserver1,

It has been suggested to me by another poster on that thread that Tories implemented the poll tax at least partially to disenfranchise Scots. If so, I don’t like that at all, to the point of almost taking it personally, for at least three reasons:

1. Poll tax laws were used in my country to effectively disenfranchise Black Americans;
   
   
2. I’m part Celt;
   
   
3. Four Scots died at the Alamo to secure my sovereign state’s independence from Santa Anna’s Mexico.
   

I’ve yet to see a poll tax used for anything other than ignoble purposes.

keenobserver1 wrote:
A similar discussion is happening on another thread where the issue is the UK governments Poll Tax of the '80's, in applying it equally to all ,the poorer members of society were not treated fairly.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Keenobserver1,

It has been suggested to me by another poster on that thread that Tories implemented the poll tax at least partially to disenfranchise Scots. If so, I don’t like that at all, to the point of almost taking it personally, for at least three reasons:

1. Poll tax laws were used in my country to effectively disenfranchise Black Americans;
   
   
2. I’m part Celt;
   
   
3. Four Scots died at the Alamo to secure my sovereign state’s independence from Santa Anna’s Mexico.
   

I’ve yet to see a poll tax used for anything other than ignoble purposes.

keenobserver1 wrote:
The Poll Tax wasn't implemented to disenfranchise Scots, it was intended to be phased in to the whole of the UK and this started with Scotland.

keenobserver1 wrote:
By the time it got to England there were protests that soon turned to riots…

keenobserver1 wrote:
… and the idea was abandoned in favour of council tax…

keenobserver1 wrote:
which is based on the value of your house at a set time, so rather than an individual tax for each person over 18 years of age, it became a single tax per household.

oftenwrong wrote:"The Poll Tax wasn't implemented to disenfranchise Scots, it was intended to be phased in to the whole of the UK and this started with Scotland."

Why did the Thatcher government "start with Scotland" in that way, do you think?

RockOnBrother wrote:

keenobserver1 wrote:
A similar discussion is happening on another thread where the issue is the UK governments Poll Tax of the '80's, in applying it equally to all ,the poorer members of society were not treated fairly.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Keenobserver1,

It has been suggested to me by another poster on that thread that Tories implemented the poll tax at least partially to disenfranchise Scots. If so, I don’t like that at all, to the point of almost taking it personally, for at least three reasons:

1. Poll tax laws were used in my country to effectively disenfranchise Black Americans;
   
   
2. I’m part Celt;
   
   
3. Four Scots died at the Alamo to secure my sovereign state’s independence from Santa Anna’s Mexico.
   

I’ve yet to see a poll tax used for anything other than ignoble purposes.

keenobserver1 wrote:
The Poll Tax wasn't implemented to disenfranchise Scots, it was intended to be phased in to the whole of the UK and this started with Scotland.

“‘I disagree’, said W.E.B.”, and also me. By “phasing in” a poll tax starting with Scotland, “‘It seems to me’, said Booker T.” and Rock On Brother, that England, with the lions share of the “clout”, given the non-sovereignty of the Government of Scotland, has disingenuously imposed a covert disenfranchising mechanism upon Scotland, sans permission of the Government of Scotland, in order to effectively subjugate Scots in their own country (Scotland) and nation (the United Kingdom. That’s heinously wrong, and I’m beginning to see why many British posters, including my Scots brothers, abhor Tories.

Ask me, if you’re so inclined, about how this “innocent” poll tax was used to terrorize Black voters in my nation during the first portion of my cognizant life.

keenobserver1 wrote:
By the time it got to England there were protests that soon turned to riots…

Sounds eerily like the protests in Mississippi and Alabama that were termed “riots” by such folks as the supporters of Black voter disenfranchisement in Selma Alabama on “Bloody Sunday” circa 1964. JL Chestnut has a first person account of that available on the NPR website from an interview on NPR’s “Fresh Air” in the early 1990s. I’ll post the link here if you want.

keenobserver1 wrote:
… and the idea was abandoned in favour of council tax…

Which it should have been; poll taxes inherently disparage the inalienable right to vote for which too many have died for decent folks to sit idly by while crypto-disenfranchisers covertly convert republics into oligarchies.

keenobserver1 wrote:
which is based on the value of your house at a set time, so rather than an individual tax for each person over 18 years of age, it became a single tax per household.

In other words, property tax disassociated with the right to vote.

It could be argued that a poll tax is fairer as everyone is treated on an equal basis - discuss.

Ivan wrote:

It could be argued that a poll tax is fairer as everyone is treated on an equal basis - discuss.

But not on this thread or board, please - UK Economics would be more appropriate.

Shirina wrote:Well it looks like Scotland wants to put forth a referendum in 2014 to see if the people want to break away from the UK.

A poll tax might not make any difference after that.