- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,651
- Reaction score
- 55,265
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
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.
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?
Glad to see a judge getting tough over all this unrest.
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?
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".
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.
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.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?