so why then when acused of a crime we are held in prison while the trial takesd place ,dos this not prove that we are infact guilty until proven inocent?
2006-09-15 19:50:23 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
ok that should be dose ,but it dose not make the question any less valid
2006-09-15 19:53:47 · update #1
bail right ,i didnt have 30,000 bucks ,hell i didnt have three thousand .bail is set so you cant pay it .i spent 8 months in prison on a simple asault while the hoax of a trial didn't take place
2006-09-15 19:56:49 · update #2
incidently at trial one of the "victoms " confessed that he and his friends had seen me drunk and alone and thoght it would be easy to roll me ,after one had kicked me in the head taking me down i grabed an object and let loose .
with this testimony i was aquited as my actions were self defence
2006-09-15 20:03:50 · update #3
We hold people in jail while awaiting trial not because they are guilty, but because we need to ensure they show up for trial. Bail is set to make it imperative they show up or they lose some amount of money the court beleives reasonable to make sure you are there when the tial is held. If you cannot pay the bail, you are held over for the trail. Sometimes, the bail isset high to decrease the possibility the person wil get out of jail because he/she may pose a danger to society.
The only way to prove guilt or innocence is through the trial. You are not going to be pleased with an answer if it does not vindicate you, so it may be best if you delete the question if you cannot fairly and objectively consider the answers given.
2006-09-15 20:14:52 · answer #1 · answered by jerry f 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A person cannot/should not be arrested without probable cause. Once arrested, a person must be brought before a judge for a preliminary hearing within 48-hours of arrest. This hearing is designed as a safeguard against unreasonable arrest and detention, the hearing is conducted in order to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to hold the defendant for trial. It is at this preliminary hearing that the arrestee should protest the evidence presented against him (i.e., try to show that there is no probable cause). However, due to the short time frame, the best you can do is to argue indigence and ask that you be released on your own recognizance. Or if a bail is set, argue that the amount is unreasonable in relation to the crime. If you have connections to the community, a job, and other factors that make it less likely that you will flee before trial, then the judge will consider all those factors when decideing whether or not to set bail, and if so how much. If you cannot successfully argue that the state has no probable cause, or that your detention is unreasonable, then you must either remain in jail until your trial or post bail.
2006-09-15 20:10:16 · answer #2 · answered by yearning_nomadic_spirit 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There has to be "probable cause" for an arrest to take place, and then to subsequenlty hold a person in custody.
I don't see where it would make sense to allow a person to walk the streets prior to being proven guilty, if probable cause, or a reasonable amount of evidence exists that the person would be a danger within society, and could take another innocent life while awaiting trial.
I do believe in the Constitutional right to a speedy trial, which would limit the amount of time a person would be held before the trial commenced.
2006-09-15 19:58:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the government believes that an individual has commited a crime, it must take appropriate action to protect the public interest and ensure that the individual receives a fair trial.
It is not a presumption of guilt but a mechanism to ensure the individual receives this trial that may cause the individual to be held. If the individual presents an adequate means of assuring the court that they will return to stand trial, they may be released until that time. Failing this, they must be held to insure that justice is rendered.
2006-09-15 20:02:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, that is bail set on the basis of threat and flight!!
People who commit crimes that are heinous and should be kept, Can you imagine letting Dahmer out to wait for trial?
Or someone who has no ties to the state and is a risk not to show up!
In most cases bail is set, but sometimes too high for a person to make it!
It has nothing to do with guilt!
2006-09-15 19:52:32 · answer #5 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Usually they let you out on your own recognasince unless you pose a flight risk.The 8 months dead time you did doubles to 16 months by the time you go to court.That way if your found guilty you already served your sentence.Does'nt make much sense when your found innocent though,does it.
2006-09-15 20:03:48 · answer #6 · answered by guvner_46 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This analogy might want to be framed in 2 diverse approaches. God is innocuous (exists/would not exist) till shown accountable of existence/non-existence. this is all a count number of attitude and semantics. hence there's no actual answer because the question is moot.
2016-11-27 01:52:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are held in a holding cell depending on the immensity of the crime. It may be for your safety, safety of others, risk of flight or suicide.
2006-09-15 20:01:16 · answer #8 · answered by worldneverchanges 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No because you are not indicted without probable cause and some evidence examined by a grand jury.
2006-09-15 19:54:46 · answer #9 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kinda.
2006-09-15 19:56:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋