Is bail granted fairly?

by **astradt1** Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:25 pm

First topic message reminder :

This hearing took place on Wednesday 5th Oct but has only just made it to Nation Press......

Millionaire's daughter to stand trial after denying London riots burglary

A millionaire's daughter will face trial after she denied stealing £5,000-worth of electronic goods during the London riots, a court official said.

Laura Johnson, 19, pleaded not guilty to eight charges of burglary after the haul was found in a car that she was allegedly driving.

Her parents are reportedly millionaires, and Johnson was a high-flying student at Newstead Wood School in Bromley, south east London, before going to the University of Exeter.
Advertisement >>

She appeared alongside two other defendants at Inner London Crown Court this afternoon, 18-year-old Alexander Elliott-Joahill, and a 17-year-old boy, who both denied the eight charges.

A branch of Comet in Charlton, south east London, was raided during the unrest that swept across England last month, and stock including televisions and mobile phones was stolen.

Johnson and the 17-year-old were bailed, while Elliott-Joahill was remanded in custody, the court official said.

The three teenagers will be tried together at the same court on January 9 next year.

(From 'The Daily Mirror', 8th Oct 2011)

by keenobserver1 Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:50 pm

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.

You will find a thread about this on the UK Politics board, don't want Ivan telling you off as well.

by ROB Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:21 pm

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?

keenobserver1 wrote:
You have got to start somewhere, smaller population to allow systems to be put in place to allow it to be operated correctly. If you intend phasing anything in then it is probably the best place to start.

No you don’t. You don’t have to start anywhere. Poll taxes are forbidden the sovereign states and the federal government by constitutional amendment in the US. The UK needs to follow our lead and ban poll taxes forever.

keenobserver1 wrote:
It could be argued that a poll tax is fairer as everyone is treated on an equal basis – discuss

No it couldn’t be. To be “fairer”, it first must be “fair”; poll taxes are inherently unfair.I

by Shirina Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:33 pm

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

All Jews were treated equally during the Holocaust. Does that justify it?

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:58 pm

:12pm UK, Wednesday October 06, 2010

Miranda Richardson, Sky News Online

David Cameron has used his first speech as Prime Minister at the Conservative Party Conference to call on the country to "pull together".
The Conservatives' slogan "We're all in this together" is "not a cry for help, but a call to arms", he said.

Mr Cameron urged Britons to take part in projects to improve their communities, start up businesses and challenge waste.

"Come on: let's pull together. Let's come together. Let's work together in the national interest," he said.

by ROB Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:06 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
David Cameron has… [called] on the country to "pull together"… "We're all in this together…"

"… let's pull together. Let's come together. Let's work together in the national interest…"

So let’s all start pulling together by paying poll tax together, English first.

by **Ivan** Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:23 pm

So let’s all start pulling together by paying poll tax together, English first.

There is no poll tax in England. It provoked the Peasants' Revolt when it was tried in 1381, and it resulted in riots when Thatcher introduced it in England in 1990 (Scotland the year before). It was much easier to avoid than a property tax and was scrapped in 1993. It was also the final nail in Thatcher's coffin, although despite so much talk about her funeral, I don't think she's actually dead yet, is she?

Now I must practise what I preach and not discuss the poll tax on this thread! Embarassed

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:05 am

Bail is quite a minor segment in the full panoply of The Law. Does the fact of this topic being discussed here mean that people are generally satisfied with all other aspects of the Trial process?

by keenobserver1 Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:16 pm

Shirina wrote:
It could be argued that a poll tax is fairer as everyone is treated on an equal basis - discuss
All Jews were treated equally during the Holocaust. Does that justify it?

Somehow I don't think that statement is quite acurate, if it were there wouldn't be any Jews?

by keenobserver1 Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:26 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Bail is quite a minor segment in the full panoply of The Law. Does the fact of this topic being discussed here mean that people are generally satisfied with all other aspects of the Trial process?

It is really dependant on which country you are in.

If in England you have one of two outcomes - Guilty or Not Guilty, which then presents a further three outcomes - Jail,Fine or Go Free.

If in Scotland you have three initial outcomes Guilty, Not Guilty or Not Proven, which then presents four outcomes - Jail,Fine,Go Free or limbo. Limbo being the outcome of not proven, meaning we think you did it but there isn't enough evidence to prove it one way or the other.

Then there is America which is something different again dependant on which part you are in, two initial outcomes the same as England but then a multitude of variables, that if you don't go free it can be anything from jail, to an injection or the hot seat.

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:40 pm

Much is dependant upon which country you are in. Very true.

This thread began with the report of a girl charged with involvement in last summer's RIOTS in London, and bailed.

The matter under discussion is that she is coincidentally from a wealthy family.

by keenobserver1 Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:52 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Much is dependant upon which country you are in. Very true.

This thread began with the report of a girl charged with involvement in last summer's RIOTS in London, and bailed.

The matter under discussion is that she is coincidentally from a wealthy family.

I had already pointed out that in my opinion it was poor journalism reporting that she was from a wealthy family and infering that this is the reason that she was allowed bail, as this is not the basis for achieving bail in either England or Scotland.

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:13 pm

Even poorer would be journalism that failed to comment upon the origins of an accused person.

The authorities were very diligent in ascertaining that 35% of the arrested rioters had a criminal record.

At least one of the accused came from a more privileged background. What's the difference in terms of newsworthiness?

by keenobserver1 Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:43 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Even poorer would be journalism that failed to comment upon the origins of an accused person.

The authorities were very diligent in ascertaining that 35% of the arrested rioters had a criminal record.

At least one of the accused came from a more privileged background. What's the difference in terms of newsworthiness?

The difference would be that the one with the criminal record would probably not get bail, whereas someone of previously good character probably would receive bail,dependant on the offence.

The origins of the person are of absolutley no consequence in the matter, hence it being of my opinion that it was poor journalism.

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:48 pm

Have you been talking to Richard Desmond?

by keenobserver1 Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:51 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Have you been talking to Richard Desmond?

Who?

by keenobserver1 Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:07 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Have you been talking to Richard Desmond?

Found out who he is, and most definetley not!!!

Thats a terrible thing to say!

by ROB Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:22 am

oftenwrong wrote:
Bail is quite a minor segment in the full panoply of The Law. Does the fact of this topic being discussed here mean that people are generally satisfied with all other aspects of the Trial process?

oftenwrong wrote:
The matter under discussion is that she [a girl charged with involvement in last summer's RIOTS] is coincidentally from a wealthy family.

I can’t speak for others; I am generally dissatisfied while mindful of how the justice systems which affect me compare to justice systems elsewhere. Bail is an issue far out of proportion to its fleeting “appearance on stage”; bail hearings are customarily brief, perhaps hurried, as judges strive to keep things moving.

Our somewhat different foci aside, Shirina has presented a profound truth regarding the undo influence of bail upon the justice process. Jail is jail, whether one is incarcerated because one has been arrested, one is awaiting trial, one is on trial, or one has been convicted and sentenced.

Shirina has emphasized the inherent unfairness of bail when the underlying principle of “reasonable” is absent from the process as applied in reality. If one net worth is one hundred million dollars, one can pretty much “make bail” in any country with a “Locke-ian” justice system, whereas if one’s net worth is thirty-four dollars and sixty-seven cents (temporarily, before next month’s bills come due), “making bail” is “iffy” at best and often impossible.

So how does that fact influence one’s decisions regarding the trial process? If one is facing a long trial, would one opt to stay in jail during that long trial to prove one’s innocence, or would one take a plea bargain offer and plead guilty to a crime one did not commit to get out of jail and avoid more jail time?

Ask yourselves this question. I know my answer; in fact, I personally know of a case wherein a lawyer probably knew than the client was innocent and advised the client to accept such a plea bargain offer, so for me it’s not a theoretical question.

by siddyg Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:43 pm

I cant speak for the US, but here in blighty there is a presumption in law that you will be bailed if you have been charged with an offence, unless that offence amongst others ( And subject to certain criteria in relation to previous charges ) is Rape/Murder and a few others.

However the potential to :-

Interfere with witnesses
Not attend a trial
Commit further offences
Interfere/dispose of evidence
Initimidate witnesses

Will effect a judges decision to grant bail, whatever the offence charged, and if brought to his/her attention by the crown/prosecuting authority.

Every person whether at a police station or in court is entitled to free legal advice, sometimes "sureties" are taken in the UK but not very often at all.

The free legal advice available is generally as good as any you would pay for and in this country most people charged with an offence are bailed.

The little rich girl according to the first post was bailed with one other accomplice, presumably the other accomplice was not a millionaires daughter as there is no mention of this fact in the journalists article.

When it comes to the law in the UK ( have little or no knowledge of US law, although i believe in certain cases your courts will cite our common law as handed down through the ages - Woodward Baby shaking trial - which by the way made me ashamed to be from these islands the way her supporters carried on) i think as far as possible there is equality.

However i think financial crime is far more robustly punished than property/physical crime,

Which is wrong IMHO

by oftenwrong Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:24 pm

QUOTE "However i think financial crime is far more robustly punished than property/physical crime...."

Based upon what evidence, please?

by siddyg Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:20 pm

Just anecdotal really.

You can give someone a good hiding and get a non custodial sentence, yet you steal money either by robbery or by stealth and you can find yourself banged up for a while.

by ROB Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:40 pm

Siddya,

That's true and unjust. If I were czar of justice, all crimes in which violence or threat of violence upon a person occurred would require mandatory life incarceration. The best deterrent to violent crime is to put away those who commit violent crime.

Crimes against money, though wrong and often heinous, do not rise to this level of immorality.

by astra Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:13 pm

Crimes against money, though wrong and often heinous, do not rise to this level of immorality.

Rock, the folk in Ashbrooke (sunderland) and Coatsworth Rd (Gateshead) where are situated the highest number of Rabinical Schools in England, will warm to your words!!

by Sponsored content

Is bail granted fairly?

Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?

Re: Is bail granted fairly?