• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nix or Amend the Bail System?

chromium

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I recall a case where a soccer player **killed a ref and tried to flee** and was still granted bail. Even at the time i thought "For christ sakes isn't he a flight risk not to mention he's charged with murder??"

Players describe punch that killed soccer referee | Daily Mail Online


Now this scumbag kind of resurrects my chagrin with the bail system, and this is coming from a civil libertarian who believes the system is generally weighed against the accused:

Man faces bestiality, domestic violence charges

"One of the victims told deputies Weaver told them to get off the “(expletive) mountain,” indicated he was going to kill himself and doused himself in gasoline in the residence. The report says a female infant and another child were in the home during the incident.

The report says Weaver admitted to forcing the adult female victims to engage in sexually deviant acts against their will, including watching him commit sexual acts with one of his horses"

One of the adult victims said Weaver has choked her until she passed out.

The report says Weaver “admitted to having a sexual attraction to children,” and that deputies would likely find child pornography in his home, including photographs of the child victim.

“Tim knew what he was doing was wrong and repeatedly asked us to shoot him,” the detective’s report says.

The state requested bail in this case be set at $500,000.


OK so he begged cops to gun him down, admitted to victimizing the child multiple times...How in the world should be allowed bail? It's like no matter how great a flight risk or safety risk, criminals can buy their way out of anything in this country. I would love to hear an alternate explanation
 
chromium said:
I recall a case where a soccer player **killed a ref and tried to flee** and was still granted bail. Even at the time i thought "For christ sakes isn't he a flight risk not to mention he's charged with murder??"

Players describe punch that killed soccer referee | Daily Mail Online


Now this scumbag kind of resurrects my chagrin with the bail system, and this is coming from a civil libertarian who believes the system is generally weighed against the accused:

Man faces bestiality, domestic violence charges

"One of the victims told deputies Weaver told them to get off the “(expletive) mountain,” indicated he was going to kill himself and doused himself in gasoline in the residence. The report says a female infant and another child were in the home during the incident.

The report says Weaver admitted to forcing the adult female victims to engage in sexually deviant acts against their will, including watching him commit sexual acts with one of his horses"

One of the adult victims said Weaver has choked her until she passed out.

The report says Weaver “admitted to having a sexual attraction to children,” and that deputies would likely find child pornography in his home, including photographs of the child victim.

“Tim knew what he was doing was wrong and repeatedly asked us to shoot him,” the detective’s report says.

The state requested bail in this case be set at $500,000.


OK so he begged cops to gun him down, admitted to victimizing the child multiple times...How in the world should be allowed bail? It's like no matter how great a flight risk or safety risk, criminals can buy their way out of anything in this country. I would love to hear an alternate explanation
Click to expand...

I doubt this'll be a satisfactory answer, chrom, but someone accused of a crime is presumed not guilty up until the time they're convicted at trial or plead guilty. The strength and severity of the case and indication of potential flight will be factors considered for setting a bond amount but even if the case is very strong, a person is still considered not guilty.
 
Bail was supposed to be a means to make sure the citizen showes up to be judged, it was not supposed to be nor should it be a form of punishment. I also object to it being used to prevent any new crimes from being committed.

The problem with bail is not that too many get it, it is that too many dont.
 
chromium said:
I recall a case where a soccer player **killed a ref and tried to flee** and was still granted bail. Even at the time i thought "For christ sakes isn't he a flight risk not to mention he's charged with murder??"

Players describe punch that killed soccer referee | Daily Mail Online


Now this scumbag kind of resurrects my chagrin with the bail system, and this is coming from a civil libertarian who believes the system is generally weighed against the accused:

Man faces bestiality, domestic violence charges

"One of the victims told deputies Weaver told them to get off the “(expletive) mountain,” indicated he was going to kill himself and doused himself in gasoline in the residence. The report says a female infant and another child were in the home during the incident.

The report says Weaver admitted to forcing the adult female victims to engage in sexually deviant acts against their will, including watching him commit sexual acts with one of his horses"

One of the adult victims said Weaver has choked her until she passed out.

The report says Weaver “admitted to having a sexual attraction to children,” and that deputies would likely find child pornography in his home, including photographs of the child victim.

“Tim knew what he was doing was wrong and repeatedly asked us to shoot him,” the detective’s report says.

The state requested bail in this case be set at $500,000.


OK so he begged cops to gun him down, admitted to victimizing the child multiple times...How in the world should be allowed bail? It's like no matter how great a flight risk or safety risk, criminals can buy their way out of anything in this country. I would love to hear an alternate explanation
Click to expand...

Unless it's 1st degree murder, they are a flight risk or have a history of missing court there is little reason to deny bond legally. I'm surprised the soccer player got it because he wasn't even a US citizen.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Bail was supposed to be a means to make sure the citizen showes up to be judged, it was not supposed to be nor should it be a form of punishment. I also object to it being used to prevent any new crimes from being committed.

The problem with bail is not that too many get it, it is that too many dont.
Click to expand...

I think you mean that too many can't pay it because nearly everyone gets it
 
Crovax said:
I think you mean that too many can't pay it because nearly everyone gets it
Click to expand...

Bails are often set too high, are used in that way as a form of punishment. No one should ever be sitting in jail for more than a few days because it is impossible for them to make bail.
 
X Factor said:
I doubt this'll be a satisfactory answer, chrom, but someone accused of a crime is presumed not guilty up until the time they're convicted at trial or plead guilty. The strength and severity of the case and indication of potential flight will be factors considered for setting a bond amount but even if the case is very strong, a person is still considered not guilty.
Click to expand...

Well then why even hold them during trial? Why not set a bail of $0? The answer, obviously, to make $$ off their crimes, kind of coincides with my theory that we allow criminals to buy their way out of anything. Suppose he doesn't flee but just tries to kill himself or gets in a shootout with the cops the 2nd time around? He already attempted to once. It just seems to me that bail should never be a means for someone to avoid justice
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Bails are often set too high, are used in that way as a form of punishment. No one should ever be sitting in jail for more than a few days because it is impossible for them to make bail.
Click to expand...

so your objection is his bail wasn't set at say $50, after he begged cops to gun him down and admitted to holding a child as a sex slave

i'm curious what you would've set bin laden's bail at had he been taken alive
 
chromium said:
so your objection is his bail wasn't set at say $50, after he begged cops to gun him down and admitted to holding a child as a sex slave

i'm curious what you would've set bin laden's bail at had he been taken alive
Click to expand...

I am not commenting on this case, I am commenting on the bail system, on how it is used today. Bail is today is abusive as is most of our "justice" system, and is a major part of the reason why BLM is here, though these idiots cant ever seem to home in on the real problems that they feel.
 
Crovax said:
Unless it's 1st degree murder, they are a flight risk or have a history of missing court there is little reason to deny bond legally. I'm surprised the soccer player got it because he wasn't even a US citizen .
Click to expand...

Ugh there was a case here, right up the street from me a drunk illegal immigrant hit and killed a young girl and he was still given bail and then took off. Her parents are workng hard to make a law to make sure that doesn't happen again. Crazy that's not already a law. The
 
I believe that our current bail system is mostly about control and dominance. Revenue might play a part, but a small part.
 
I do not believe in bail, either they need to sit until they are sent home while awaiting trial (for minor offenses) or they have to be held until trial if that is warranted. No rich/poor system where the rich can buy themselves out of jail and poor people are left sitting in jail for far too long.
 
Peter King said:
I do not believe in bail, either they need to sit until they are sent home while awaiting trial (for minor offenses) or they have to be held until trial if that is warranted. No rich/poor system where the rich can buy themselves out of jail and poor people are left sitting in jail for far too long.
Click to expand...
Too many people would end up sitting longer waiting for trial than there sentences would be.

This idea could have merit, if regarding a minor crime, a person is released once they sit far whatever a sentence would have been. Still subject to court and verdict, of course.

But then an innocent person ends up getting punished for a crime they didn't commit.
 
radcen said:
Too many people would end up sitting longer waiting for trial than there sentences would be.

This idea could have merit, if regarding a minor crime, a person is released once they sit far whatever a sentence would have been. Still subject to court and verdict, of course.

But then an innocent person ends up getting punished for a crime they didn't commit.
Click to expand...

Our system works differently, here you can sit in jail as a mere suspect and you will only be charged if enough evidence is available for a likely conviction. A judge decides whether or not a suspect will have to remain in jail until his trial. if it is a crime with a minimum (I think) of three years maximum, normally a suspect is released to await trail. Crimes that carry a longer punishment a judge will decide whether or not a person has to remain in jail.

Reasons to not be released are easy, if they have the suspicion you will influence or threaten the witnesses, you will not be released. If you are a flight risk the same applies, you will sit in jail until your trial.

Normal trials will last just a few days for not too complicated cases after which the judge/judges will give their verdict 14 days later. Very complicated cases with long prison sentences will take more than just a few days, it can last for a few weeks tops. For example not all witnesses will be called, normally the lawyer of the defendant will have had the content of those interviews and if he wants to hear that witness in court he will ask the judge to send a summons to appear to the witness. The same goes for the prosecution and even the judge can demand some witnesses will be summoned to court because he/they have questions of this witness. But if nobody has an issue with the content of the witness and nobody wants to hear him/her in court, than the judge will just rely on the police interview of those witnesses. Normally this will mean that only relevant witnesses will be heard, making the trial a lot less lengthy. The pre-trial wheeling and dealing between prosecution and defense will usually be handled in pro-forma trial dates, at those moments extra forensics can be ordered by the judge, psychiatric evaluation can be asked by the lawyer, prosecutor or even the judge, etc. etc. etc.

Usually this is a system that works very well, we do not do plea deals. You will be handed (especially in traffic cases) a fine which is meant as a punishment but every person can contest that fine by the police and then a judge will make a decision. The fines are standard amounts for specific crimes. Running a red light will cost you 220 euro's but if you run a few red lights and almost cause a crash the police can take your driving license away and at that time no fine will be given because that will be decided higher up in the legal system.

But even petty crime can be dealt with fines without a judge having to sign off on it. But when it comes to crimes with real jail time attached only judges will decide purely on the merits of the case, no deals will be made, no jail house snitches and in normal cases no deals will be made with other criminals for their testimony (this will happen only in really extra ordinary cases like seriously organized crime cases).

And as said, you can sit in jail as a suspect for about 120 days, but in our system your name is never made public, the media does not report on the name of the suspect and if no evidence is found the suspect is released and only his immediate circle of people he knows will ever be the wiser. Because in our system being arrested is not evidence of anything, only if you are prosecuted than the case is more serious but even then the name is not made public (nor in the media) because even then a suspect is innocent until proven guilty.
 
Peter King said:
Our system works differently, here you can sit in jail as a mere suspect and you will only be charged if enough evidence is available for a likely conviction. A judge decides whether or not a suspect will have to remain in jail until his trial. if it is a crime with a minimum (I think) of three years maximum, normally a suspect is released to await trail. Crimes that carry a longer punishment a judge will decide whether or not a person has to remain in jail.

Reasons to not be released are easy, if they have the suspicion you will influence or threaten the witnesses, you will not be released. If you are a flight risk the same applies, you will sit in jail until your trial.

Normal trials will last just a few days for not too complicated cases after which the judge/judges will give their verdict 14 days later. Very complicated cases with long prison sentences will take more than just a few days, it can last for a few weeks tops. For example not all witnesses will be called, normally the lawyer of the defendant will have had the content of those interviews and if he wants to hear that witness in court he will ask the judge to send a summons to appear to the witness. The same goes for the prosecution and even the judge can demand some witnesses will be summoned to court because he/they have questions of this witness. But if nobody has an issue with the content of the witness and nobody wants to hear him/her in court, than the judge will just rely on the police interview of those witnesses. Normally this will mean that only relevant witnesses will be heard, making the trial a lot less lengthy. The pre-trial wheeling and dealing between prosecution and defense will usually be handled in pro-forma trial dates, at those moments extra forensics can be ordered by the judge, psychiatric evaluation can be asked by the lawyer, prosecutor or even the judge, etc. etc. etc.

Usually this is a system that works very well, we do not do plea deals. You will be handed (especially in traffic cases) a fine which is meant as a punishment but every person can contest that fine by the police and then a judge will make a decision. The fines are standard amounts for specific crimes. Running a red light will cost you 220 euro's but if you run a few red lights and almost cause a crash the police can take your driving license away and at that time no fine will be given because that will be decided higher up in the legal system.

But even petty crime can be dealt with fines without a judge having to sign off on it. But when it comes to crimes with real jail time attached only judges will decide purely on the merits of the case, no deals will be made, no jail house snitches and in normal cases no deals will be made with other criminals for their testimony (this will happen only in really extra ordinary cases like seriously organized crime cases).

And as said, you can sit in jail as a suspect for about 120 days, but in our system your name is never made public, the media does not report on the name of the suspect and if no evidence is found the suspect is released and only his immediate circle of people he knows will ever be the wiser. Because in our system being arrested is not evidence of anything, only if you are prosecuted than the case is more serious but even then the name is not made public (nor in the media) because even then a suspect is innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...
Good post.

I had to remind myself that you're from the Netherlands as I posted.

Anyway, even with plea deals we have a huge backlog of cases, and that's a big reason they can take so long. Personally, I don't like our plea system, but that's getting a little too far off-topic.
 
Personally I think that a whole of a lot of problems could be solved by almost never arresting people for traffic offenses (unless they become violent or threatening, with an exception for drunk drivers who are that intoxicated that they cannot be trusted to be left with the car). That would eliminate loads of people from the system. The officer writes a ticket, the ticket is sent to a judge who decides what punishment the man/woman gets (fine I would assume) and if the ticketed person agrees he/she pays the fine or else he/she disagrees and a court date will be set by the judge. If a judge is unclear he can access the video from the police and/or can phone the officer and the suspect for clarifications before handing a judgement. Again, it would be a whole of a lot quicker than arresting, processing and the whole song and dance that traffic arrests are now.

That would allow police officers to remain on the street longer, would make the court system less busy, it would prevent people having to come up with bail etc. and it would be a hell of a lot cheaper on the people (both the fined as on the police/judicial system). No need for court appointed lawyers, court scribes, etc. etc.

And yes, I know that a lot of people get ticketed by the police too, but every person arrested for speeding is one too many.
 
Peter King said:
Personally I think that a whole of a lot of problems could be solved by almost never arresting people for traffic offenses (unless they become violent or threatening, with an exception for drunk drivers who are that intoxicated that they cannot be trusted to be left with the car). That would eliminate loads of people from the system. The officer writes a ticket, the ticket is sent to a judge who decides what punishment the man/woman gets (fine I would assume) and if the ticketed person agrees he/she pays the fine or else he/she disagrees and a court date will be set by the judge. If a judge is unclear he can access the video from the police and/or can phone the officer and the suspect for clarifications before handing a judgement. Again, it would be a whole of a lot quicker than arresting, processing and the whole song and dance that traffic arrests are now.

That would allow police officers to remain on the street longer, would make the court system less busy, it would prevent people having to come up with bail etc. and it would be a hell of a lot cheaper on the people (both the fined as on the police/judicial system). No need for court appointed lawyers, court scribes, etc. etc.

And yes, I know that a lot of people get ticketed by the police too, but every person arrested for speeding is one too many.
Click to expand...
Unless there is the honest potential for danger to others, or the person is a habitual offender, I see arresting for traffic offenses as completely unnecessary.
 
Peter King said:
Our system works differently, here you can sit in jail as a mere suspect and you will only be charged if enough evidence is available for a likely conviction. A judge decides whether or not a suspect will have to remain in jail until his trial. if it is a crime with a minimum (I think) of three years maximum, normally a suspect is released to await trail. Crimes that carry a longer punishment a judge will decide whether or not a person has to remain in jail.

Reasons to not be released are easy, if they have the suspicion you will influence or threaten the witnesses, you will not be released. If you are a flight risk the same applies, you will sit in jail until your trial.

Normal trials will last just a few days for not too complicated cases after which the judge/judges will give their verdict 14 days later. Very complicated cases with long prison sentences will take more than just a few days, it can last for a few weeks tops. For example not all witnesses will be called, normally the lawyer of the defendant will have had the content of those interviews and if he wants to hear that witness in court he will ask the judge to send a summons to appear to the witness. The same goes for the prosecution and even the judge can demand some witnesses will be summoned to court because he/they have questions of this witness. But if nobody has an issue with the content of the witness and nobody wants to hear him/her in court, than the judge will just rely on the police interview of those witnesses. Normally this will mean that only relevant witnesses will be heard, making the trial a lot less lengthy. The pre-trial wheeling and dealing between prosecution and defense will usually be handled in pro-forma trial dates, at those moments extra forensics can be ordered by the judge, psychiatric evaluation can be asked by the lawyer, prosecutor or even the judge, etc. etc. etc.

Usually this is a system that works very well, we do not do plea deals. You will be handed (especially in traffic cases) a fine which is meant as a punishment but every person can contest that fine by the police and then a judge will make a decision. The fines are standard amounts for specific crimes. Running a red light will cost you 220 euro's but if you run a few red lights and almost cause a crash the police can take your driving license away and at that time no fine will be given because that will be decided higher up in the legal system.

But even petty crime can be dealt with fines without a judge having to sign off on it. But when it comes to crimes with real jail time attached only judges will decide purely on the merits of the case, no deals will be made, no jail house snitches and in normal cases no deals will be made with other criminals for their testimony (this will happen only in really extra ordinary cases like seriously organized crime cases).

And as said, you can sit in jail as a suspect for about 120 days, but in our system your name is never made public, the media does not report on the name of the suspect and if no evidence is found the suspect is released and only his immediate circle of people he knows will ever be the wiser. Because in our system being arrested is not evidence of anything, only if you are prosecuted than the case is more serious but even then the name is not made public (nor in the media) because even then a suspect is innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

The Netherlands doesn't have jury trials?
 
Andalublue said:
The Netherlands doesn't have jury trials?
Click to expand...

We do not. We have a panel of three judges (for more serious crimes). You also have the option of appealing your punishment twice (if you include the European Court you have three appeals).

The first appeal is to another panel of judges, they will redo the entire case. If you loose that appeal you can go to our version of the supreme court called "de hoge raad" which translate the high council. There the case will be measured by the legality of the case, did the judges correctly apply the law, etc. but they will not redo the entire case again.
 
Peter King said:
We do not. We have a panel of three judges (for more serious crimes). You also have the option of appealing your punishment twice (if you include the European Court you have three appeals).

The first appeal is to another panel of judges, they will redo the entire case. If you loose that appeal you can go to our version of the supreme court called "de hoge raad" which translate the high council. There the case will be measured by the legality of the case, did the judges correctly apply the law, etc. but they will not redo the entire case again.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not a huge fan of the jury system either; jurors are far too easy to manipulate and rarely selected randomly.
 
Peter King said:
I do not believe in bail, either they need to sit until they are sent home while awaiting trial (for minor offenses) or they have to be held until trial if that is warranted. No rich/poor system where the rich can buy themselves out of jail and poor people are left sitting in jail for far too long.
Click to expand...

Yes this is what i was getting at, a proper balance wherein every suspect is treated the same regardless of pocketbook and since bail should be withheld based on specific conditions, let it be withheld every time those conditions are met and let it be $1 or something otherwise
 
Peter King said:
We do not. We have a panel of three judges (for more serious crimes). You also have the option of appealing your punishment twice (if you include the European Court you have three appeals).

The first appeal is to another panel of judges, they will redo the entire case. If you loose that appeal you can go to our version of the supreme court called "de hoge raad" which translate the high council. There the case will be measured by the legality of the case, did the judges correctly apply the law, etc. but they will not redo the entire case again.
Click to expand...

Be glad your fate will never sit at the mercy of 12 ignoramuses in a rush for their afternoon ballgame like in america. The first thing should be apparent in any American trial is that only those too stupid to get out of jury duty remain on the jury...and that is what we call justice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom