If you want me to cut her a break I’ll cut her a break on the marijuana incarcerations.
Prosecutors are not supposed to choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to. Lines such as “She was wearing are dress so she was asking to be raped,” or “He’s just an illegal immigrant trying to steal a job” should never be an operating mandate in a prosecutor’s office.
But keeping people in jail because there might be another wildfire soon, and we need the cheap labor, is a heinous injustice. It’s ghoulish.
Middle-class folks have to put up their house but po’ folk get to run around free was never equal justice under law.
The very serious number of crimes committed by people released this way has made it very unpopular among anyone who take rape, robbery, murder etc. seriously.
Bail is not income taxes it should not be a sliding scale “Oh you’re a teacher . . . your bail’s gonna be super big. Oh you’re an illegal well here is your get outta jail free card” is not equal justice.
That whacky mentality ceates more crime, not equal justice.
Nope. The crime (and the accused’s crime record, and the accused’s risk of flight) should be the determination of bail. The question should be blind to other factors.
Once arrested, a person is held over pending trial unless and until he can post bond sufficient to ensure his return.
Caught-in-the-act Mugger: “Uh but I’m a poor illegal I can’t apay more than $10” Kamala: “Well then, equal justice says we know for sure if we take your $10 as bail, you will return for it and will not commit another crime while you are out.”
It is detainment before the state has established guilt or innocence through due process.
If you can afford to pay a ransom you don’t have to be detained.
If you can’t afford to pay a ransom you are.
It’s kind of weird that conservatives would allow the State to forcibly detain someone for an indefinite period of time without the due process of a trial based on ability to pay.
We hold charged and arraigned suspects, who have had a preliminary hearing, pending a full trial.
We are correct to do so.
Except when a person is extraordinarily wealthy (so a normal bail amount would not likely hold them), bail should not be reduced just because someone is unable to pay.
My opinion is that it should be. I’m not asking you to agree. I simply gave my opinion to the question you asked. My answer was NO. And I gave my reason.
Bail reform is aimed at misdemeanors and minor felonies - ie; not assault etc…
So two people are charged with a misdemeanor. One is rich, the other is poor. The rich person posts bail and is free until trial. The poor person has to stay in jail.
That’s what bail reform is trying to straighten out.
