People Accused of Violent Crimes Should Not Be Allowed To Post Bail People accused of violent crimes should not be allowed to post bail and remain out of jail while their trial is pending. There are many reasons to why strongly agree with this statement. Many factors are unknown to the public without conducting some sort of extensive research. Whether it is simply reading in the paper about pending trials, or as complicated as researching previous trials. Bail is decided by a judge, and their lives are devoted to handling these types of decisions.
There are three solid reasons to why I feel it is necessary to deny bail to those accused of violent crimes. One is that all conditions for release are decided by a judge who is fully aware of the circumstances. Another is that these defendants, since being arrested, should be considered a threat to public safety. My last, and final, reason is that my rationale strongly agrees with denial of bail to the accused. In Nebraska, as written in the Statutes of Nebraska, bail is granted after a judge takes into account the nature and circumstances of the offense charged. This judge looks at the defendants family ties, employment, financial resources, character and mentality, having resided in the community, conviction records, and record of court appearances or of flight to avoid prosecution or failure to appear.
The reason I selected this topic is because I feel that today’s generation of youth and children have been led mainly because of peer pressure which sometimes cause them to make bad choices. This usually causes minors to do some things that are wrong before they think about the consequences. They should be given consideration based on their age and all aspects of their background should be looked ...
A judge, when deciding if bail is to be granted, does not just flip a coin to decide. He or she looks at all aspects of the situation. It all rests in the judge’s hands. When a judge looks at a person accused of a violent crime, such as murder, a few things are liable to pop into perspective. One would be to how violent and detrimental the accusations are. Any rational thinking person would realize that if arrested, they are in suspicion.
Therefore, a state appointed judge is also going to realize that this person must be a threat, especially if accused of a violent crime. It does not violate the accused rights, because once under arrest, their rights are strictly defined as what the judge’s final decision is. This leads me to my next point, that these accused people are a threat. The purpose of bail, as defined by the Nebraska Statute, is to ensure that the defendant will show at the trial.
I researched a case where this was strongly considered. Brian Mase is accused of shooting and killing John Boyer, after Boyer refused to leave Mase’s home. They were in a fight over a stolen watch. Friends and relatives gave evidence that Mase had premeditated the murder by making numerous phone calls to Boyer and various threats outside of Mase’s home. The judge denied bail for reasons that I completely agree with. Since the prosecution had evidence that Mase planned to kill Boyer if he ever came to his home, the judge felt there was a risk involved with Mase staying in the county if granted bail.
They suspected that Mase might flee after he learns what type of case the prosecution has against him. The defendant’s attorney argued that Mase had nowhere to run, and many relatives. The judges decision in this case did not follow all of the rules show above. However, the one factor of threat overshadowed all of the rest. Even though Mase had strong family ties and nowhere to go to, even the slightest suspicion that he might flee was enough. Agree with the decision to deny bail.
I cannot think of anyone who would want a man accused of killing someone over a watch being able to roam free on bail while their trial is in progress. This, in my own opinion, is a perfect example of how judges look at the circumstances of the case. My final argument to why bail should be denied is solely based on my own personal analysis. Bail, in my opinion, is a privilege. If I had my own way, bail would only be used in misdemeanor offenses. If a person is accused of a violent crime there is evidently some inclination for the arrest.
A juvenile is defined as not yet adult; young, childish, immature. In the United States, definitions and age limits of juveniles vary. The 16-20 year old age group has one of the highest incidences of serious crime (ojjdp. org). In 1994, juveniles accounted for 19% of all violent crime arrests in The United States. Although juvenile arrests for violent crimes declined 3% from 1994-1995 (the first ...
These accused people are not just randomly drawn out of a hat, they have had warrants out for their arrest. As many know, warrants have to be approved by a judge, the same judge who will decide if they are able to post bail. There was enough evidence, circumstantial or solid, for the arrest to be made for these violent crimes, and so there is enough evidence to deny bail to these accused individuals. It is inhumane for someone accused of a violent crime to be able to roam around free when their trial is pending. Once they are arrested, they should lose their bid for freedom until the verdict is in.