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

where is the link to the whole article?

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.

that shows right there that even before 1984 they were still holding without bail in some instances. It doesnt change what our constitution says. Isn't this guy we were originally talking about being help on a capital crime?

it is in the other post same article

where is the link to the whole article?

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.

that shows right there that even before 1984 they were still holding without bail in some instances. It doesnt change what our constitution says. Isn't this guy we were originally talking about being help on a capital crime?

any person who cannot make bail and is in jail awaiting sentencing

should have to repay the cost of his/her incarceration.

I do not care if it is monetary amounts, or service to the community. It is infact my post, and I was using a broad brush with some of my responses, but I think they are all aplicable to both prison, and county lockup. i am sorry if you disagree, it is just my feeling on the subject

as yuo said

absolutely.

A person should lose their constitution rights when serving time in a penal institution, sorry

I don't change from that position sir. How is this relevant to the constitution at this point?

you expect him to pay for something he has been subject to
that he has no control over

if you do not want the tax payer to pay then apply bail

he is not convicted thus it is not his responsibility to pay for the government decision to hold him

you cant have it both ways

either set reasonable bail

or pay the bill

yes it is it is that way here but that does not make it right

if found not guity what should happen

i would say multi million dollar penalty myself

then they should be grateful that the system worked for them. There should be no punitive damages, this is the law of the land my friend, since the constitution was drafted

so if you a charged with murder thrown in jail no bail and you lose your business and your lively hood then the govt should not have to pay for it

sorry rob this is not china yet

I wouldnt lose my business, there are protective measures taken. You know what is scary, I have a very good chace of that hapening to me one of these days. I will be just fine. It is the law, and should be followed. There is a far cry from a murder arrest, and a death penalty case

the info provided on this person is it is a murder case says nothing about capitol punishment


****An inmate awaiting trial on a murder charge****

I may be offbase but I see a couple of issues here. Frivolous lawsuits are one reason that the courts can't offer speedy trials. The man is innocent until proven guilty, I agree. I only question if he is being treated differently because of his weight. If he is, then he may have a valid discrimination suit. Otherwise, he is trying to get rich while he has the fullest protection under the Constitution. Besides, right now he has access to the legal libraries. He will come out a winner regardless of how this turns out. The publicity this gets guarantees his trial will get priority and his attorney can push for change of venue.

if this thread holds a sample of the jury pool he doesn't stand a chance

there have been biast posts by all but 2-3 posters in this thread

absolutely. A person should lose their constitution rights when serving time in a penal institution, sorry

Theres a lesson here.
If you don't want to lose weight,don't kill people.Simple
He took another life,why should he be fed in the first place?

You are forgetting that a conviction of a felony, and incarceration is a punishment. Not selling lady's speed stick in the canteen, refusing to serve more than one hot meal a day, suing for the playboy channel, suing for access to the dmv records,

put his ^ss in a chain gang.......maricopa county AZ.....criminals are treated as criminals ,not...better than we are......most jails in the US treat the crooks better than single mothers or fathers, and people on welfare.