• 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!

Judge sets bail to $1 million for Lancaster protesters (1 Viewer)

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
50,370
Reaction score
55,808
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Judge sets bail to $1 million for Lancaster protesters; Lt. Gov. Fetterman calls it 'unconstitutional'

A Lancaster County judge set bail at $1 million for some of the protesters arrested for arson and riot-related charges early Monday morning following the police shooting of 27-year-old Ricardo Munoz.

The protesters are each charged with felony arson, riot and vandalism charges, among other protest-related charges. At least six of the eight people arrested Monday morning had bail set at $1 million by Magisterial District Judge Bruce Roth on Monday night, according to court documents. One of the protesters was not eligible for bail, and another person’s docket had not yet been updated.

An additional five people - four adults and one juvenile - were arrested on Monday after further investigation, police announced Tuesday. They are still waiting for a judge to set their bail.

So the 8th Amendment prohibits "excessive bail". The question is whether $1M bail is "excessive" considering the crimes alleged.

The idea behind bail is that it's an incentive for the accused to actually show up in court. Bail is generally set higher when the crime involves a threat to public safety or a distinct probability that the suspect will flee. Paul Manafort's bail, for example, was set at $10M.

The situation we're looking at is that "protesters" picked up for violent acts have often been released right back on to the streets where they have committed more crimes. In the case of one guy in Portland he was released and then he assassinated a counter-protester. Even without the direct threat of assault there is definitely a threat to the public due to arson and even distracting the police so that other crimes go unaddressed. Furthermore, the "protests" tend to block traffic and significantly complicate medical responses. On top of all that, the exceedingly lenient treatment of "protesters" (if not outright enabling of them) in various cities seems to have sparked a sense of entitlement in may of these criminal actors. Basically, a lot of them seem to be under the impression that they can and should get away with anything in the name of "protest".

In my opinion this judge is doing right by the community. The $1M bail is a bold statement that rioting and violence will not be tolerated in this jurisdiction. The bail is definitely high but, under the circumstances, it's certainly not "excessive".
 
In America, bail is used by prosecutors as a tool to force guilty pleas, the lesser the crime the more likely it will succeed. Obviously, this tool only works against those of less means. Fortunately for prosecutors, police tend to patrol areas where people with low means. Smoke crack on a fire escape, you're far more likely to get in trouble than if you waltz around a party of investment bankers carrying a whopping mound of blow on a shiny silver platter.

I recall reading an article that reviewed drug cases in TX. Something like 30-35% of field tests came back positive. A small fraction of them actually were what the field test said, as determined by those who kept fighting and eventually got them tested in labs. What about the rest? People pled guilty despite knowing they were innocent, that it really was spilled baby powder or some such, because the alternative was to sit in jail for 6-12 months awaiting trial.

What is the point of being acquitted of a minor drug crime if you leave the courtroom homeless, possessionless, jobless, and hopeless? Best to bow to the government, plead out, and pick up the pieces.

Bail is their main weapon in this regard; it's their "heads I win". And the "tails you lose" part is that if you do spend your year in jail and win acquittal, they still put you away for a year.




Bail could be done right, and fairly, but we don't do it that way. We don't do it that way because we don't give a damn. It's happening to those people not our people. So **** 'em. The 'Merkan way.

Why do you think Americans tend to bray so very loudly about their freedoms and rights? It's because they know that those people enjoy no such things, but they themselves do, so.... whatevs. 'Merka.
 
In America, bail is used by prosecutors as a tool to force guilty pleas, the lesser the crime the more likely it will succeed. Obviously, this tool only works against those of less means. Fortunately for prosecutors, police tend to patrol areas where people with low means. Smoke crack on a fire escape, you're far more likely to get in trouble than if you waltz around a party of investment bankers carrying a whopping mound of blow on a shiny silver platter.

I recall reading an article that reviewed drug cases in TX. Something like 30-35% of field tests came back positive. A small fraction of them actually were what the field test said, as determined by those who kept fighting and eventually got them tested in labs. What about the rest? People pled guilty despite knowing they were innocent, that it really was spilled baby powder or some such, because the alternative was to sit in jail for 6-12 months awaiting trial.

What is the point of being acquitted of a minor drug crime if you leave the courtroom homeless, possessionless, jobless, and hopeless? Best to bow to the government, plead out, and pick up the pieces.

Bail is their main weapon in this regard; it's their "heads I win". And the "tails you lose" part is that if you do spend your year in jail and win acquittal, they still put you away for a year.




Bail could be done right, and fairly, but we don't do it that way. We don't do it that way because we don't give a damn. It's happening to those people not our people. So **** 'em. The 'Merkan way.

Why do you think Americans tend to bray so very loudly about their freedoms and rights? It's because they know that those people enjoy no such things, but they themselves do, so.... whatevs. 'Merka.

First of all, the OP is talking about serious crimes. You are talking about relatively minor crimes. So what do you do about the crack smoker, the shop lifter, the car smash and grab people? There is no bail, bail, or OR. Is there such a thing as OR,when you have FTA’s and warrants?

I don’t claim to know the solution, but I’d encourage you to take your next vacation in San Francisco where no bail and “crimes of need” are the mess du jure.
 
Glad to see a judge getting tough over all this unrest.
 
In America, bail is used by prosecutors as a tool to force guilty pleas, the lesser the crime the more likely it will succeed. Obviously, this tool only works against those of less means. Fortunately for prosecutors, police tend to patrol areas where people with low means. Smoke crack on a fire escape, you're far more likely to get in trouble than if you waltz around a party of investment bankers carrying a whopping mound of blow on a shiny silver platter.

I recall reading an article that reviewed drug cases in TX. Something like 30-35% of field tests came back positive. A small fraction of them actually were what the field test said, as determined by those who kept fighting and eventually got them tested in labs. What about the rest? People pled guilty despite knowing they were innocent, that it really was spilled baby powder or some such, because the alternative was to sit in jail for 6-12 months awaiting trial.

What is the point of being acquitted of a minor drug crime if you leave the courtroom homeless, possessionless, jobless, and hopeless? Best to bow to the government, plead out, and pick up the pieces.

Bail is their main weapon in this regard; it's their "heads I win". And the "tails you lose" part is that if you do spend your year in jail and win acquittal, they still put you away for a year.




Bail could be done right, and fairly, but we don't do it that way. We don't do it that way because we don't give a damn. It's happening to those people not our people. So **** 'em. The 'Merkan way.

Why do you think Americans tend to bray so very loudly about their freedoms and rights? It's because they know that those people enjoy no such things, but they themselves do, so.... whatevs. 'Merka.

Wait a minute...innocent people knowingly plead guilty? Why would anyone possibly do that? Out of curiosity, if one of these innocent people decided to withdraw their plea after they discovered that the evidence against them was fraudulent then should they be charged with perjury and sentenced anyway?
 
Wait a minute...innocent people knowingly plead guilty?

Yes, see Michael Flynn as an example of a current high profile case where this occurred.

Why would anyone possibly do that?

Usually because of the threat of a longer jail term if you fail to prove your case at trial. There are one off reasons that are far more rare such as protecting others from prosecution (see: Flynn).

Out of curiosity, if one of these innocent people decided to withdraw their plea after they discovered that the evidence against them was fraudulent then should they be charged with perjury and sentenced anyway?

This is what the judge in the Flynn case is suggesting, but typically is never done. An example of why someone might want to change their guilty plea would be the uncovering of new evidence during trial. Typically, under normal circumstances, you can withdraw your guilty plea at any time prior to sentencing. You can't typically change your guilty plea because you were given a more severe punishment than you had anticipated. Once you're at sentencing the sentencing stage you're in it for the long haul and appeal would be your typical next action.
 
Last edited:
Glad to see a judge getting tough over all this unrest.

The problem we have seen is that liberal groups have been funding bail for rioters in order to get them back out on the streets as soon as possible in an effort to continue political unrest. This is not a defense for high bail, just a natural consequence of such behavior. Rioters aren't putting up their own bail and judges/prosecutors know this. This also means there is little incentive to appear.
 
Wait a minute...innocent people knowingly plead guilty? Why would anyone possibly do that? Out of curiosity, if one of these innocent people decided to withdraw their plea after they discovered that the evidence against them was fraudulent then should they be charged with perjury and sentenced anyway?

It happens. Especially when police will lie in court, and the innocent victim of police believe its their easiest way out.
 
Judge sets bail to $1 million for Lancaster protesters; Lt. Gov. Fetterman calls it 'unconstitutional'



So the 8th Amendment prohibits "excessive bail". The question is whether $1M bail is "excessive" considering the crimes alleged.

The idea behind bail is that it's an incentive for the accused to actually show up in court. Bail is generally set higher when the crime involves a threat to public safety or a distinct probability that the suspect will flee. Paul Manafort's bail, for example, was set at $10M.

The situation we're looking at is that "protesters" picked up for violent acts have often been released right back on to the streets where they have committed more crimes. In the case of one guy in Portland he was released and then he assassinated a counter-protester. Even without the direct threat of assault there is definitely a threat to the public due to arson and even distracting the police so that other crimes go unaddressed. Furthermore, the "protests" tend to block traffic and significantly complicate medical responses. On top of all that, the exceedingly lenient treatment of "protesters" (if not outright enabling of them) in various cities seems to have sparked a sense of entitlement in may of these criminal actors. Basically, a lot of them seem to be under the impression that they can and should get away with anything in the name of "protest".

In my opinion this judge is doing right by the community. The $1M bail is a bold statement that rioting and violence will not be tolerated in this jurisdiction. The bail is definitely high but, under the circumstances, it's certainly not "excessive".

Agreed. Anyone starting that **** doesn't deserve to be out on bail to begin with, imo. I know, I know, Innocent until proven guilty, but what are the chances they're innocent?
 
The problem we have seen is that liberal groups have been funding bail for rioters in order to get them back out on the streets as soon as possible in an effort to continue political unrest. This is not a defense for high bail, just a natural consequence of such behavior. Rioters aren't putting up their own bail and judges/prosecutors know this. This also means there is little incentive to appear.

I am well aware of the underlying organizations that are funding bail for rioters. Members of Biden's campaign and Kamala Harris has donated to them and sent letters out for supporters to do the same. That story has been well documented but our dangerous media has not been inclined to report on it at any length because it does not help their agenda. Also in the cities where the protests/riots are occurring their AG's often are not prosecuting the arrests of criminal behavior.

Tonight I read an article stating they have uncovered some direct links of who is funding BLM. One of those links lead to the China Communist Party. If true and well documented the story will grow long legs and force our media to cover it.

Have you ever visited the websites of the Communist Party USA or the Democratic Socialist Party ofAmerica? I recommend everyone do so with frequency if you are a supporter of liberty and freedom. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians alike. They are quite upfront on who and what they support in politics and ideology. They also share what protests they are involved in or planning to be a part of etc. One would hope if a person is supporting the same candidates and same policies as DSPA or CPUSA are in any race, you would hope it would cause them to pause and reconsider their thinking.
 
First of all, the OP is talking about serious crimes. You are talking about relatively minor crimes. So what do you do about the crack smoker, the shop lifter, the car smash and grab people? There is no bail, bail, or OR. Is there such a thing as OR,when you have FTA’s and warrants?

I don’t claim to know the solution, but I’d encourage you to take your next vacation in San Francisco where no bail and “crimes of need” are the mess du jure.
and crimes for which everyone has the presumption of innocence until a jury finds them guilty...don't forget that. We have sent people to prison for decades that were cleared by DNA...think about that.
 
In America, bail is used by prosecutors as a tool to force guilty pleas, the lesser the crime the more likely it will succeed. Obviously, this tool only works against those of less means. Fortunately for prosecutors, police tend to patrol areas where people with low means. Smoke crack on a fire escape, you're far more likely to get in trouble than if you waltz around a party of investment bankers carrying a whopping mound of blow on a shiny silver platter.

I recall reading an article that reviewed drug cases in TX. Something like 30-35% of field tests came back positive. A small fraction of them actually were what the field test said, as determined by those who kept fighting and eventually got them tested in labs. What about the rest? People pled guilty despite knowing they were innocent, that it really was spilled baby powder or some such, because the alternative was to sit in jail for 6-12 months awaiting trial.

What is the point of being acquitted of a minor drug crime if you leave the courtroom homeless, possessionless, jobless, and hopeless? Best to bow to the government, plead out, and pick up the pieces.

Bail is their main weapon in this regard; it's their "heads I win". And the "tails you lose" part is that if you do spend your year in jail and win acquittal, they still put you away for a year.




Bail could be done right, and fairly, but we don't do it that way. We don't do it that way because we don't give a damn. It's happening to those people not our people. So **** 'em. The 'Merkan way.

Why do you think Americans tend to bray so very loudly about their freedoms and rights? It's because they know that those people enjoy no such things, but they themselves do, so.... whatevs. 'Merka.

Without forcing people to plead guilty by holding them in jail for months by being unable to post bond while waiting for a trial - meaning their life is destroyed no matter what - the criminal justice system would collapse. If a DA becomes too hardball on making deals in urban cities, defense attorneys only need promise to demand a jury trial and a speedy trial for every case to break that. If every defendant demanded a trial by jury the criminal justice system would collapse due to tidal waves of cases that can not possibly be tried for years - running up against the right to a speedy trial (which only somewhat still exists. Is a year or two "speedy?")
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom