Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Poor inmate
Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Thu 05/01/08 06:51 PM
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The problem, is, who is the defining authority on what constitutes excessiveness, or cruel and unusual? It sure is not you or I, sadly to say. if it is unaffordable it is excessive and if it is excessive it is cruel and unusual punishment for someone not convicted of anything 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

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 05/01/08 06:51 PM Edited by adj4u on Thu 05/01/08 06:54 PM
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

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Thu 05/01/08 06:53 PM
and not granting it is cruel and unusual 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

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Thu 05/01/08 06:53 PM
and not granting it is cruel and unusual and i do not see that word if in there anywhere nor does it say bail shall be granted

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 05/01/08 06:56 PM Edited by adj4u on Thu 05/01/08 06:57 PM
and not granting it is cruel and unusual 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 ex·ces·sive (k-ssv) adj. Exceeding a normal, usual, reasonable, or proper bail is normally granted

kriesybear Joined Sat 04/12/08 Posts: 508	Thu 05/01/08 06:56 PM
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 its not cruel or unusual its just safer for the public

awolf1010 Joined Sun 03/30/08 Posts: 7251	Thu 05/01/08 06:56 PM
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The problem, is, who is the defining authority on what constitutes excessiveness, or cruel and unusual? It sure is not you or I, sadly to say. if it is unaffordable it is excessive and if it is excessive it is cruel and unusual punishment for someone not convicted of anything 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.....

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Thu 05/01/08 06:57 PM
and not granting it is cruel and unusual 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 ex·ces·sive (k-ssv) adj. Exceeding a normal, usual, reasonable, or proper 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

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 05/01/08 06:59 PM
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The problem, is, who is the defining authority on what constitutes excessiveness, or cruel and unusual? It sure is not you or I, sadly to say. if it is unaffordable it is excessive and if it is excessive it is cruel and unusual punishment for someone not convicted of anything 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..... irrelevant they were not living with me b4 they were accused i would not want to house you neither

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Thu 05/01/08 06:59 PM
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

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 05/01/08 07:08 PM
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

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 05/01/08 07:14 PM
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

Nurseguy08 Joined Fri 04/18/08 Posts: 370	Thu 05/01/08 07:14 PM
i'll take care of it Why did I get nervous everytime she says that???

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Thu 05/01/08 07:16 PM
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 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

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 05/01/08 07:19 PM
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

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Thu 05/01/08 07:21 PM
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?

kidatheart70 Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 6234	Thu 05/01/08 07:22 PM
so where is our royal family They're in Hollywood!!

Single_Rob Joined Mon 02/04/08 Posts: 8233	Thu 05/01/08 07:23 PM
so where is our royal family They're in Hollywood!! indeed they are

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 05/01/08 07:24 PM
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

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 05/01/08 07:25 PM
so where is our royal family They're in Hollywood!! maybe your royal family