After out recent Cop Killings there is a push to change the way bail is set. Although I agree I wonder if some want to take things too far. Some want to leave it up to a Judge's feelings and I don't feel that would be right. If you are truly "Innocent until proven Guilty" would it be fair to deny bail to anyone? Is this going to fuel bigger changes down the road? How do they do it in Canada?

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

evidence is produced at the hearing for bail. this is just the first step dealing with the courts on a case. This is a preliminary step for a trial and its a judges job to see that the Police have done their job in providing enough evidence to warrant a bail. It also depends on the crime the individual is accused. a public nudity charge is likely to have les bail than a 1st degree murder. But it all depends on th e judges discretion.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I thought the biggest part of bail was if the judge thinks you will show up to serve your sentence if you are convicted. So a maximum $100 fine rates $100 bail, while capital punishment is no bail. Something in between is in between. All of this gets bent by the bail bondsman who takes 10% of what the judge says and lets you out. The bondsman bets 9 out of 10 show and makes money on that, essentially proving that in most cases bail is set far too high.

Bail isn't supposed to be if they think the person is going to commit another crime. In that case they should hold the trial PDQ so they are in prison! Or commit the person under mental health rules as a danger to themselves or others.

---

Rights are not absolute, since any of them can be taken away under certain circumstances. Your right to privacy, for example, can be breached if evidence is presented to a judge that convinces that judge there is "probable cause" (a legal term of art) to believe there is evidence of a crime to be found by issuance of a search warrant. You don't have to be convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" before your right to privacy is set aside.

Bail is the same, in that while you are still presumed "innocent until proven guilty" your right to bail can be lost if a judge is presented evidence that you are too dangerous, or too likely to flee from very serious charges, and that no ammount of bail would be appropriate in your case. The judge must balance the likelihood of flight, the seriousness of your offense and the safety of the community.

In both cases, the rights exist unless you have done something to cause them to be lost. And in both cases there are legal processes to assure those rights are not ignored without due process.

Qui-Gon
Doesn't the Patriot Act bypass all those rights in America?

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

only if the individual is deemed a thread to national security or a terrorist threat. Generally, the average murderer doesnt fall under this heading. Though i think the law give so me wiggle room that you could basically keep someone that disturbed the peace in guantanamo if the fed thought it necessary for the public "good"

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Rights are not absolute, since any of them can be taken away under certain circumstances. Your right to privacy, for example, can be breached if evidence is presented to a judge that convinces that judge there is "probable cause" (a legal term of art) to believe there is evidence of a crime to be found by issuance of a search warrant. You don't have to be convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" before your right to privacy is set aside.

Bail is the same, in that while you are still presumed "innocent until proven guilty" your right to bail can be lost if a judge is presented evidence that you are too dangerous, or too likely to flee from very serious charges, and that no ammount of bail would be appropriate in your case. The judge must balance the likelihood of flight, the seriousness of your offense and the safety of the community.

In both cases, the rights exist unless you have done something to cause them to be lost. And in both cases there are legal processes to assure those rights are not ignored without due process.

Surely it's "the rights exist unless it is alleged that you have done something to cause them to be lost"?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Surely it's "the rights exist unless it is alleged that you have done something to cause them to be lost"?

If by alleged you mean "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", then sure, alleged is correct. But I did say that evidence must be presented to convince a judge at a lower level than proof BARD--the judge must be convinced that there is "probable cause" to believe--so not a mere allegation.

Surely it's "the rights exist unless it is alleged that you have done something to cause them to be lost"?

If by alleged you mean "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", then sure, alleged is correct. But I did say that evidence must be presented to convince a judge at a lower level than proof BARD--the judge must be convinced that there is "probable cause" to believe--so not a mere allegation.

Right, I meant by alleged that it's sufficient for a judge to have "probable cause" (a standard that you called a legal term of art) to believe a person did something wrong. A little more than a mere allegation, but not quite at the level of the person in question to have actually done anything wrong, which your summary seemed to imply.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Surely it's "the rights exist unless it is alleged that you have done something to cause them to be lost"?

If by alleged you mean "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", then sure, alleged is correct. But I did say that evidence must be presented to convince a judge at a lower level than proof BARD--the judge must be convinced that there is "probable cause" to believe--so not a mere allegation.

Right, I meant by alleged that it's sufficient for a judge to have "probable cause" (a standard that you called a legal term of art) to believe a person did something wrong. A little more than a mere allegation, but not quite at the level of the person in question to have actually done anything wrong, which your summary seemed to imply.

Allegation: Your Honor, my confidential informant alleges that Joe Blow is a drug dealer.
Probable Cause: Your Honor, my confidential informant, who has been right in the past, states that Joe Blow is a drug dealer.

You see the huge difference between the two.

---

You see the huge difference between the two.

According to Law & Order the DA's office can convince a grand jury to indite a ham sandwich.

---

me@rescam.org

a grand jury only hears one side of the story and the DA office doesn't need to make the accused aware of any current grand jury seeing evidence against them. otherwise the accused could be destroying evidence before actual charges are brought against them

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

a grand jury only hears one side of the story and the DA office doesn't need to make the accused aware of any current grand jury seeing evidence against them. otherwise the accused could be destroying evidence before actual charges are brought against them

The police seize the evidence based on the Patriot act. They give it to the persecutor. The Grand Jury indites on the copy of the evidence obtained via the Patriot act. The judge convicts in the secret court in absentia. The person is then taken to prison by extraordinary rendition. This is the great American legal system ^h^h^h^h^h^h star chamber in action.

---

a grand jury only hears one side of the story and the DA office doesn't need to make the accused aware of any current grand jury seeing evidence against them. otherwise the accused could be destroying evidence before actual charges are brought against them

The police seize the evidence based on the Patriot act. They give it to the persecutor. The Grand Jury indites on the copy of the evidence obtained via the Patriot act. The judge convicts in the secret court in absentia. The person is then taken to prison by extraordinary rendition. This is the great American legal system ^h^h^h^h^h^h star chamber in action.

Not sure citizens can undergo extraordinary rendition, but then again non-citizens (including permanent residents) can be picked up off the street and never heard from again under the Patriot Act, indefinite detention basically at the whim ("reasonable grounds to believe") of the US Attorney General. And people wondered why I might want to become a citizen ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Not sure citizens can undergo extraordinary rendition, but then again non-citizens (including permanent residents) can be picked up off the street and never heard from again under the Patriot Act, indefinite detention basically at the whim ("reasonable grounds to believe") of the US Attorney General. And people wondered why I might want to become a citizen ...

Naturalized citizens can be unnaturalized and then never heard from again. Ask any nazi guard.

As to the renditions, in the USA they pick up on a material witness warrant and change it after the fact.

---