there is no constitutional right to bail ad, it just says if there is bail set it cannot be excessive. There is no guarantee of bail being made in any criminal case. Show me where it says that

and not granting it is cruel and unusual

and i do not see that word if in there anywhere
-------
ex·ces·sive (k-ssv)
adj.
Exceeding a normal, usual, reasonable, or proper

limithttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/excessive

that is a ludicrous argument. How can not granting bail be cruel and unusual? Cruel and unusual punishment is having to listen to muzak while in elevators, hanson reunion tours, and watching Jimmy Carter talk his nonsense on the tv

nor does it say bail shall be granted

ex·ces·sive (k-ssv)
adj.
Exceeding a normal, usual, reasonable, or proper

bail is normally granted

its not cruel or unusual its just safer for the public

I wonder??? would you be willing to house and care for these people that are awaiting trial......no they have not been convicted yet...but this thing called a preliminary hearing...allows there is enough evidence to support the.trial.....

again it does not say bail shall be granted do you know where bail came from in our criminal system. I will find a link because I cannot type it out, and do it justice. You are wrong on this one old friend, sorry

irrelevant they were not living with me b4 they were accused

i would not want to house you neither

Excessive bail was borrowed with a few slight changes from the English Bill of Rights Act. The concept of bail in both England and in the United States was never thought as right to bail in all cases, but to provide that bail would not be excessive in cases where it is considered legitimate to set bail.

The definition of Bail, as according to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, property given as surety that a person released from custody will return custody will return at an appointed time. The concept of bail was first created by the Statute of Westminster the First of 1275 A.D., which created a detailed list of certain offenses that were bailable and those that were not. Because judges were permitted to imprison people with or without bail, the Petition of Right was enacted in 1628 A.D. Due to various frauds of petitions for habeas corpus which could not be presented the English Parliament enacted the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 A.D., which established procedures for the release of prisoners from

http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/49981.html


You have misrepresented our constitution. I am very much in favor of folowing our document, but let's keep it on track to what it is supposed to mean

those are good BRITISH examples lets see united state examples

besides yer still treating him as if he has been found guilty
and he has not

he has been confined since sept lost over 20 pounds a month
(more than likely an unsafe rate of weight loss)

yet you say he has no right to sue

he has every right to sue

whether he has a right to win is up to the jury

it seems nearly everyone posting in this thread wants to persecute this man

maybe he deserves to be persecuted but not till he is found guilty

BAIL DENIAL: OPEN DEBATE; PRETRIAL JAILING RAISES BASIC LEGAL QUESTIONS

*


By STUART TAYLOR JR., SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: May 28, 1987

this pretty much says the constitution means no bail is excessive

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7D9153DF93BA15756C0A961948260

Why did I get nervous everytime she says that???

Now you are twisting things to suit your purpose. For better or worse our constitution was founded on a base of modified english law. You say we have to follow intent in regards to the 2a, but not this one? The intent is very important. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that bail MUST be granted. You show me that and I will concede. You cannot, because it does not exist. You are twisting it to make you feel better about your position. The precedent clearly fals on my side of the argument. There is also no guarantee of a 6,000 calorie meal to a person incarcerated, whether tried or not. If they did give him this amount, and he had a heart attack from the unhealthy food you would claim he had the right to sue for medical. You cannot nerf the world my friend

did you read the article posted yet

kind of enlightening

and british were ruled by royalty at the time

so where is our royal family

yes, I read it, and again, the United States Contitution does not make it mandatory for a judge to allow bail in any case. That ruling just pretty much upheld what I said, did it not?

so where is our royal family


They're in Hollywood!!

indeed they are

Before 1984, Federal law and the laws of most states required, at least in theory, that defendants be released before trial unless high bail was necessary to insure their appearance in court, except in cases in which capital punishment was a possibility.

But supporters of the 1984 law, including some liberal Democrats as well as conservative Republicans and officials of the Reagan Administration, stressed the strong evidence that many trial judges were already detaining especially dangerous defendants by setting high bail under the guise of insuring their appearance.

It would be more honest and more fair to poor defendants, the argument went, for judges to address the issue explicitly and openly. The 1984 law requires a hearing at which the defendant can seek to refute allegations that he would commit crimes if released, along with other procedural protections that included expedited appeal.


so they made a law that permitted the sidetracking (derailing) of the constitution

and you uphold it

maybe your royal family