The Star Ledger editorial board wants bail "reform" in New Jersey -- to protect the public from potentially dangerous criminals. The editorial is, at least, honest: ". . . the reality is that we dole out punishment before convictions at every level today." Read it here.
But the editorial board also remembers that protecting the public from the accused isn't the only legitimate consideration. It is also imperative to protect the presumptively innocent from the system.
"If we imprison people before trial, that underscores the need for more speedy trials. Alex Shalom of the New Jersey ACLU, a former public defender, represented a man charged with rape who was held for more than a year and, when he asked for a speedy trial, prosecutors said the DNA test was still not complete. After nearly two years in jail, the man was acquitted."
The editorial board adds: "And before a judge denies bail, a hearing should be held to determine the defendant’s actual danger to the community. This judgment can’t rely on bias or intuition."
We've previously complained on this blog about the injustice in freeing some men accused of crimes based on their ability to pay, while poor men -- often black -- are forced to serve a de facto sentence before even a scrap of evidence is admitted at trial. (Remember Hofstra?) This is barbaric in the extreme, and someday, it will be widely considered as such (akin to the old practice of paying a substitute to answer the military draft).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
These laws are making by mentally retarded people who have born hatred mindset towards male sexuality.
This happened last summer to me and a friend.
Colorado passed BUI Boating Under the Influence law, and every park ranger was eager beaver to be the first kid on the block to arrest soemone for it, since it's prounounced a Major Problem.
I was pulled out of the BACKSEAT of a friend's car and arrested for drunk driving. Arguing with the guy on the way to jail, and pointing out the many witnesses who saw me pulled out of the BACKSEAT, he radioed his partner to ask who was driving the boat. There were three "Mikes" on the boat - me, the SOBER driver, and another friend. He changed the arrest to Boating Under the Influence since "Mike" was the driver. "Your friends ratted you out".
I was required to take weekly alcohol abuse classes at $25.00 each for six months until my court appearance. I stopped after a couple of weeks and a warrent was out for my arrest.
My $4,000 retainer was well spent, the attorney made quick work proving I was innocent. After the verdict, he THEN mentioned the warrent needed to be quashed.
Pissed off the Judge. He would have arrested me if he'd known. Cost another several hundred dollars, but I walked off a free man. Attorney says don't bother thinking about restitution.
It's never about justice with those guys.
It's ALWAYS about the money.
some men accused of crimes based on their ability to pay, while poor men -- often black -- are forced to serve a de facto sentence
Even a wealthy man may have a problem with bail if the bail is $500k. If he doesn't have that sort of cash on hand and has to use a bail bondsman and put up collateral to cover it he still loses the bndman's 10% fee which is $50k which he'll have to pay upfront and that's assuming he even has that.
Post a Comment