Is anyone else sickened by this?

Question

Is anyone else sickened by the fact that in the U.S. you can pretty much commit any crime, but as long as you can pay bail you can walk free?

And let me ask this too: Do you think if we didn't have such a thing as "bail" that there would be less crimes?

Answer 1

No. Because you pay bail to go free when you're /accused/, and, at that point, the presumption is still that you are innocent. Why should innocent people not walk free?

Once proven guilty, you go to jail.

Answer 2

I don't think the bulk of most crimes would be affected at all by no bail. The reason is that most crimes aren't committed with the person saying I'll get bail for a while. They are committed out of necessity or just plain ignorance of the law.

I don't think everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty unless the legal system can get people in trials faster. I mean, there is a tape of R Kelly doing all kinda things with a 14 yr old girl. The tape is years old and he hasn't spent but like 1 night in jail. Hellooo!!! He did it, there's a tape, and he's probably doing it today. We all know he married Alliyah illegally when she was like 16. He obviously has a problem.

Answer 3

The criminal justice system (notice the term Criminal Justice, not victum justice) is set up in a way that people are considered innocent until proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) guilty. Like it or not, this system has worked well for several hundred years and is designed to prevent innocent individuals from being confined.

Bail prevents people who have not been tried and judged by a jury of their peers from lengthy jail terms that lead up to the trial. It is also necessary to allow individuals with minor offenses to be let out of jail to prevent increased populations in already over crowded jails. The U.S. is one of the most (if not the most) regulated countries in the world. If everyone who was arrested was required to stay in jail until their trial , the cost to the public would be astronomical and taxes would have to be increased.

Without Bail, I would have been jailed for two weeks in a metropolitan jail for drinking a single beer before a music concert when I was 20 years old. (I opened my first beer and was approached by an undercover officer. The legal drinking age is 21---I am old enough to register for selective service--so I can be drafted into the military and killed in an oil war- but not drink a beer- go figure) but either way without bail, I- a first time offender arrested on the nonviolent charge of underage consumption of alcohol- would have been placed in a jail cell with hardened criminals. That would be sick.

Answer 4

That's just not true. Being out on bail is not the same as walking free. For particularly heinous crimes and when you are a flight risk, the judges can and do deny bail. They do it all the time.

Answer 5

No, because not everyone is given bail.

If the government can show that you are a great risk of not returning to court or that you would be a danger to society, bail can be denied.

Besides, would you want to have anyone be able to be locked up in jail until trial based on just what the police say? That is a dangerous idea.

Answer 6

Bail doesn't mean you walk free! It means you Pay for the right to be out until trial.
90% of accused go out on Bail in California, as it is usually set very low.

Answer 7

Bail is to be free before your trial. You still go to court and possibly prison for the crime. Bail is in the Constitution. Not every criminal has this option.

Answer 8

Untrue.

In some cases, the judge refuses to allow bail, due to the heinousness of the offense, the defendant is a multiple offender, public safety, et al.

Further, if the defendant is illegally in this country, INS/BCIS shall transport him to a detention center, if he is able to secure bail on his criminal case.

To answer your second question, quite possibly; however, what if the defendant is not guilty of the charged offense, or if the offense is pretty minor? It would be unfair to not allow the defendant to be free on bond until after he goes to trial, or pleads guilty.

Answer 9

not true ... violent offenders and/or flight risks are held without bail

no ... bail is for the accused to be able to prepare for his/her defense (other than in the media) they are not guilty until convicted by a jury ... so you're asking that innocent people be held until they can prove they're innocent ... the system (ideally) is set up to protect the innocent at all costs ... and sometimes that cost is a guilty person goes free

what would you rather have, more innocent people in jail ... or less criminals on the street?

Answer 10

not by the existence of bail but that the legal system in this country is two tiered.
The rich get great lawyers and get off for murder, DUI, lying to congress
the poor get 5 yrs for a dime bag of MJ, and convicted of murder rape even when the DNA evidence is in their favor (they get released but if they had expensive lawers to begin with they wouldnt have done any time whatsoever.).