Strictly speaking, denying bail based solely on the gravity of the charges is of questionable constitutionality. That's because defendants are presumed innocent so there's no actual legal basis to predict future criminality from present charges. Linking the charges to flight risk is another matter, though, again, it's not at all clear th…
Strictly speaking, denying bail based solely on the gravity of the charges is of questionable constitutionality. That's because defendants are presumed innocent so there's no actual legal basis to predict future criminality from present charges. Linking the charges to flight risk is another matter, though, again, it's not at all clear that defendants charged with more serious crimes are more likely to jump bail than those accused of lesser ones. BTW, Wisconsin is now a big time bail jumping state, which may explain the issue's political resonance there. https://captimes.com/news/local/neighborhoods/walk-the-line-how-bail-jumping-became-wisconsins-most-charged-crime/article_8349851a-f8cd-5fc3-a659-7fc5c1885e25.html
As for the late beloved Jeanne Kirkpatrick, there's some karmic irony there, as I vaguely recall that she wrote a famous essay entitled "Dictatorships and Double Standards," in which she argued that the US should support foreign authoritarian regimes in places like Chile and Nicaragua - because the Leftist alternatives, being allegedly less respectful of private property, were so much worse. Not to bad mouth Jeanne, but with the advantage of forty years' hindsight, that has an uncomfortable ring in the present political moment. Of course, I doubt she ever dreamed that her logic would be applied to the United States. So I guess the moral is, be careful what you wish for.
Well, that's probably a good thing, overall. Pure logic would have no one in jail at any point until convicted. Pure logic would have slander and libel laws ruled unconstitutional. Etc., etc.
No it wouldn't, because there's still a legitimate state interest in not letting them arbitrarily flee the jurisdiction. It's perfectly logical to want defendants to show up for trial even if they're presumed innocent. Otherwise the legal system can't function. It can certainly function without locking people up the way they do in authoritarian countries, simply because the regime accuses them of crimes against the state.
Strictly speaking, denying bail based solely on the gravity of the charges is of questionable constitutionality. That's because defendants are presumed innocent so there's no actual legal basis to predict future criminality from present charges. Linking the charges to flight risk is another matter, though, again, it's not at all clear that defendants charged with more serious crimes are more likely to jump bail than those accused of lesser ones. BTW, Wisconsin is now a big time bail jumping state, which may explain the issue's political resonance there. https://captimes.com/news/local/neighborhoods/walk-the-line-how-bail-jumping-became-wisconsins-most-charged-crime/article_8349851a-f8cd-5fc3-a659-7fc5c1885e25.html
As for the late beloved Jeanne Kirkpatrick, there's some karmic irony there, as I vaguely recall that she wrote a famous essay entitled "Dictatorships and Double Standards," in which she argued that the US should support foreign authoritarian regimes in places like Chile and Nicaragua - because the Leftist alternatives, being allegedly less respectful of private property, were so much worse. Not to bad mouth Jeanne, but with the advantage of forty years' hindsight, that has an uncomfortable ring in the present political moment. Of course, I doubt she ever dreamed that her logic would be applied to the United States. So I guess the moral is, be careful what you wish for.
"Strictly speaking, denying bail based solely on the gravity of the charges is of questionable constitutionality. "
In 1789 the US congress first established that judge's had discretion in capital cases.
Further, in 1987 United States v. Salerno the SC upheld the (1984 Act's) provision providing for pretrial detention based on community-danger.
As JVL likes to say, the SCOTUS isn't a logic machine. 😉
Well, that's probably a good thing, overall. Pure logic would have no one in jail at any point until convicted. Pure logic would have slander and libel laws ruled unconstitutional. Etc., etc.
No it wouldn't, because there's still a legitimate state interest in not letting them arbitrarily flee the jurisdiction. It's perfectly logical to want defendants to show up for trial even if they're presumed innocent. Otherwise the legal system can't function. It can certainly function without locking people up the way they do in authoritarian countries, simply because the regime accuses them of crimes against the state.