As the title says, is bail unconsitituational. To not overcomlicate things we'll assume the US constitiution (as you guys are the only ones who praise it oh so much )
I'll work out this post some more following pebbles format tomorrow when Im sobered up but you get the general idea for now and can start if you want. this is more of a reminder for myself that I like this topic.
I'll start...
Bail is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
First of all, the whole point of the constitution is everyone being equal right? Then why can you get out of jail, if you have more money than some other guy who has to stay??? Even if bail is constitutional, it is unconstitutional for the government to be able to decide the price, because then they can basically decide whether the person accused of a crime can stay in jail before trial, or not, by setting the price outrageously high, or low.
Key word is warped, perception of "all men created equal" is all fun in theory.
Anyways I'm going to stay out of this debate because it's based on the U.S system and constitution which I have absolutely no idea about and don't understand why it's so important.
How the hell do people think that the US bail system is subject worth debating. The last time I paid any attention to that Tommy Lee Jones was trying to convince Harrison Ford not to jump from a pipe and into Niagara falls. Luckily he failed which for me was the high point of the film. In real life more recently the two escapees were from Clinton Jail in New York State, were not so fortunate. They got what all fugitives in the US get - a bullet or forty. People from the US talk a lot of BS about the US constitution, god, home, mom, apple pie, liberty, equality and fraternity.
The legally defined motto of the USA is -
" E Pluribus Unum ("from many, one") "
Eisenhower said it was -
"In God We Trust"
Neither of these are true. IF you want stay alive in the US your motto must be:
Easily. Where do you live? Chattanooga? Charleston? You need to get out a bit more. On second thoughts stay in and hug your pc. It is safer, but only marginally.
The thing with bail is that it seems to be a rather simple concept. If you are charged with a crime the court might ask for some money as bond and then return said money to you after you appear at court. This is done to avoid spending time in jail. If you have money avaible to pay your bond this isn't a big deal but if you don't you can get into big trouble. For example if are charged with a non-voilent crime and you can't pay your bail you are going to have to spend time in jail. Essential bail has become a way to lock up the poor for no good reason. In 2004 a study showed that close to 40% of New Jersey's jail population was being held because they couldn't pay their bail. That is ridiculous since jails are meant to hold people that are dangerous to society. Now even if you don't think jail time isn't that huge a deal (in which case you are insane) keep in mind the people who are spending time in jail don't have alot of money. Many times they will even have jobs in which if you are absent you are fired. The best option if you can't pay your bail is then plead guilty and get out of jail right away. Which kind of gets rid of the whole innocent until proven guilty concept. Or you could maintain innocence and stay in jail while your life is ruined. So currently if you are poor your options are go to jail because you don't have alot of money which will lead you to losing more money unless your plead guilty right away even though you may not be guilty. Afterwards you will then have to put on every job application you fill out that you have been convicted of a crime. In reality bail is a way to keep the poor poor.
On to the question of is it constituional. The eight amendment states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". I would say charging a poor person charged with a non-violent offense a bail amount they cannot afford to pay should be conisdered excessive bail.
If you want to learn more about this and get a good laugh clicky
The thing with bail is that it seems to be a rather simple concept. If you are charged with a crime the court might ask for some money as bond and then return said money to you after you appear at court. This is done to avoid spending time in jail. If you have money avaible to pay your bond this isn't a big deal but if you don't you can get into big trouble. For example if are charged with a non-voilent crime and you can't pay your bail you are going to have to spend time in jail. Essential bail has become a way to lock up the poor for no good reason. In 2004 a study showed that close to 40% of New Jersey's jail population was being held because they couldn't pay their bail. That is ridiculous since jails are meant to hold people that are dangerous to society. Now even if you don't think jail time isn't that huge a deal (in which case you are insane) keep in mind the people who are spending time in jail don't have alot of money. Many times they will even have jobs in which if you are absent you are fired. The best option if you can't pay your bail is then plead guilty and get out of jail right away. Which kind of gets rid of the whole innocent until proven guilty concept. Or you could maintain innocence and stay in jail while your life is ruined. So currently if you are poor your options are go to jail because you don't have alot of money which will lead you to losing more money unless your plead guilty right away even though you may not be guilty. Afterwards you will then have to put on every job application you fill out that you have been convicted of a crime. In reality bail is a way to keep the poor poor.
On to the question of is it constituional. The eight amendment states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". I would say charging a poor person charged with a non-violent offense a bail amount they cannot afford to pay should be conisdered excessive bail.
If you want to learn more about this and get a good laugh clicky
Sorry everyone, have been quite busy lately and haven't had the time to properly elaborate on this like I promised
I think that the US bail system in its current form is indeed unconstitutional.
As CoD said, the eighth amendment reads "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The bail system is not inherently flawed in my opinion; the US implementation, however, is. Bail was initially introduced to lower the flight risk, to prevent people from fleeing the state while awaiting trial. You could spend that time in jail or put up some form of bond to assure you come to the trial. Sounds ideal, right? Too bad that it is currently abused by the state, minor offenders are often presented with the choice of waiting 6 weeks in jail for their trial/pay a huge bail, or plead guilty and get off with 3 days. This is insane and shouldn't be happening. This is excessive bail.
I think bail should only be used when there is a high flight risk or high likelihood to obstruct justice. Basically, only in high-profile cases which would be worth fleeing the state over. It should not be used for minor, non-violent offences at all. These people are hardly a threat to society, and they should not be in jail just because they cannot pay their sudden, often excessive, bail. The amount of said bail should be based on income, flight risk and severity of the crime committed.
The thing with bail is that it seems to be a rather simple concept. If you are charged with a crime the court might ask for some money as bond and then return said money to you after you appear at court. This is done to avoid spending time in jail. If you have money avaible to pay your bond this isn't a big deal but if you don't you can get into big trouble. For example if are charged with a non-voilent crime and you can't pay your bail you are going to have to spend time in jail. Essential bail has become a way to lock up the poor for no good reason. In 2004 a study showed that close to 40% of New Jersey's jail population was being held because they couldn't pay their bail. That is ridiculous since jails are meant to hold people that are dangerous to society. Now even if you don't think jail time isn't that huge a deal (in which case you are insane) keep in mind the people who are spending time in jail don't have alot of money. Many times they will even have jobs in which if you are absent you are fired. The best option if you can't pay your bail is then plead guilty and get out of jail right away. Which kind of gets rid of the whole innocent until proven guilty concept. Or you could maintain innocence and stay in jail while your life is ruined. So currently if you are poor your options are go to jail because you don't have alot of money which will lead you to losing more money unless your plead guilty right away even though you may not be guilty. Afterwards you will then have to put on every job application you fill out that you have been convicted of a crime. In reality bail is a way to keep the poor poor.
On to the question of is it constituional. The eight amendment states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". I would say charging a poor person charged with a non-violent offense a bail amount they cannot afford to pay should be conisdered excessive bail.
If you want to learn more about this and get a good laugh clicky
Mainly I am going to wait on Skully and Cheater's further info, as I am not sure of the intricacies of the issue.
The only thing I can think of is that bail gives people with more money (or influence over people with money) more opportunity to be free. I thought however that was the point of the bail amount being variable by the judge, such that a bail amount would be set according to the accused's ability to find it, such that the loss of that money would be bad enough to ensure they come back for the hearing.
ofc judges are human, and USA also political, so it may be that they are not all always performing that function with the moral fortitude they should. That could be blamed more on some other things than the bail system though, and if it happens then surely it is not confined to bail judgements.
)