Sentenced to prison before trial?

[dmcc10880]

Ok, would you be happy if she was held in jail prior to the trial since she could not afford to pay the bail imposed and then not given any credit for the time already spent in jail. If that happened, she would end up with a total of 6 or 7 years in jail/prison.


You really are missing the point about holding a person that has been charged with a crime in jail unless bail can be posted. That is why she was in jail, not because she committed a crime.

OMG. I do agree with you!

C.A. couldn't bail out. She was held in custody in JAIL, NOT PRISON. She was found guilty of 4 counts of lying to LE, with max penalty of 1 year of each count. Good time and gain time, she was scheduled for release. Period. End of story. She's out. Justice served by a jury of her peers. Respect the law. Done.

 

[Torellian]

Ok, would you be happy if she was held in jail prior to the trial since she could not afford to pay the bail imposed and then not given any credit for the time already spent in jail. If that happened, she would end up with a total of 6 or 7 years in jail/prison.

To respond to that, let me ask you a question. If YOU were accused of something, perhaps something you knew you were innocent of, would YOU be happy sitting in jail for 3 years waiting the chance to prove your innocense in a country where the justice system boasts of presuming you are innocent unless you are PROVEN guilty?

 

[justalayman]

To respond to that, let me ask you a question. If YOU were accused of something, perhaps something you knew you were innocent of, would YOU be happy sitting in jail for 3 years waiting the chance to prove your innocense in a country where the justice system boasts of presuming you are innocent unless you are PROVEN guilty?

Of course not but what does that have to do with anything?

The fact is; she was allowed to post bail to be able to not set in jail prior to the trial. The fact is: she could not afford to pay the bail and nobody would pay it for her.

Bail is required to try to cause the charged person to appear in court as they are required to. It is legal. In fact, if it even addressed in the Constitution.

So, would you rather have all the alleged criminals (that the court believes there is enough evidence to actually charge them with the crime) running around on the streets with absolutely nothing to urge them to return to court when ordered? By your statements here, it would appear so.

 

[Torellian]

Of course not but what does that have to do with anything?

The fact is; she was allowed to post bail to be able to not set in jail prior to the trial. The fact is: she could not afford to pay the bail and nobody would pay it for her.

Bail is required to try to cause the charged person to appear in court as they are required to. It is legal. In fact, if it even addressed in the Constitution.

So, would you rather have all the alleged criminals (that the court believes there is enough evidence to actually charge them with the crime) running around on the streets with absolutely nothing to urge them to return to court when ordered? By your statements here, it would appear so.

Right. But in the constitution, it also states that excessive bail shall not be required. Bail is routinely set much higher than what anyone would reasonably be expected to have access to. Hell, could YOU pay $500,000? Why not go up to a million, or a billion dollars? After all, it's still bail, so it can't be said that the person didn't have a chance to post it.

 

[justalayman]

the bail issue has been addressed many times. If she believed she was being charged an excessive bail, it was her right to challenge the amount of bail.

After all, it's still bail, so it can't be said that the person didn't have a chance to post it.

Do you realize she was actually out on bail (yes, that half million dollar bail) for a period of time and the guarantor revoked it?