The Judicial Concepts of Entering a Plea and Making Bail Are Improper

[bobevenson]

A) If a person is charged with a crime, it is the responsibility of the government to prove his guilt, and B) anybody charged with a crime is entitled to be released pending trial without any bail requirement. The AEP will turn the judicial system on its godforsaken head!

[Arising_uk]

And if they run away and then commit another crime?

[bobevenson]

And if they run away and then commit another crime?

If they don't show up for trial, then arrest them, and give them a speedy trial. The point is, that people who cannot afford bail should not have to sit in jail, and if they do, and are later found not guilty at trial, the government should have to pay them heavy damages for their deprivation of liberty.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




Another reason AEP should only continue to exist in your head while you are in your mothers basement.


...BTW, this thread has nothing to do with political philosophy unless you support, develop, or explain your thesis.






.

[bobevenson]

.




Another reason AEP should only continue to exist in your head while you are in your mothers basement.


...BTW, this thread has nothing to do with political philosophy unless you support, develop, or explain your thesis.






.

Wiltrack, take a break from your drugs, you don't know what the fuck you're even talking about.

[Obvious Leo]

A) If a person is charged with a crime, it is the responsibility of the government to prove his guilt,

In which country are we talking about, Bob? This is not the way it works in my country. In Australia a person can only be charged with a crime by the police and it is they who are then charged with the responsibility of providing evidence in support of his guilt. The government has no say in the matter one way or the other.

[Arising_uk]

And if they run away and then commit another crime?

If they don't show up for trial, then arrest them, and give them a speedy trial. ...

Er!? I'd have thought the point now is that they have run away and have no intention of being found for trial?

The point is, that people who cannot afford bail should not have to sit in jail, and if they do, and are later found not guilty at trial, the government should have to pay them heavy damages for their deprivation of liberty.

I think this is a fair point for those who cannot afford bail but do you think they should still stay in jail and be paid if found not guilty. I'm not sure how it works over there but I think here, in general, it is those who are likely to not return who are remanded. All in all I thought the idea of bail is that it shows that there are those who will pay surety for the accused and this, hopefully, puts an ethical onus upon the accused to return for trial.

[bobevenson]

A) If a person is charged with a crime, it is the responsibility of the government to prove his guilt,

In which country are we talking about, Bob? This is not the way it works in my country. In Australia a person can only be charged with a crime by the police and it is they who are then charged with the responsibility of providing evidence in support of his guilt. The government has no say in the matter one way or the other.

In Australia, if a person is accused of committing a crime, is he free to go until the trial commences?

[Obvious Leo]

A) If a person is charged with a crime, it is the responsibility of the government to prove his guilt,

In which country are we talking about, Bob? This is not the way it works in my country. In Australia a person can only be charged with a crime by the police and it is they who are then charged with the responsibility of providing evidence in support of his guilt. The government has no say in the matter one way or the other.

In Australia, if a person is accused of committing a crime, is he free to go until the trial commences?

It depends on the nature of the charge and the weight of the evidence in support of it. If the person is deemed to be a risk to public safety or likely to abscond without appearing for trial then he may be remanded in custody pending trial. Sometimes he may be released on the proviso that he meets certain conditions, including bail, as a surety against his future court appearance.

However absolutely NONE of these decisions are made by the government so the central point of your OP is simply not applicable in this country. The police lay the charges, the courts determine how the charges will be dealt with, and the government's got fuck-all to do with it. Maybe the US should try it our way because everybody seems to reckon it's both sensible and fair to all parties.

[bobevenson]

Sometimes he may be released on the proviso that he meets certain conditions, including bail, as a surety against his future court appearance.

Again, the very concept of bail is improper!

However absolutely NONE of these decisions are made by the government so the central point of your
OP is simply not applicable in this country.

Are you actually suggesting the police are not part of the government? What are they, a privately-run enterprise of some kind???

[Obvious Leo]

Are you actually suggesting the police are not part of the government?

Not in my country they aren't. They are employees of the state. Teachers in public schools, nurses in public hospitals and garbage collectors aren't part of the government either.

You like talking about government a lot, Bob, but in fact you don't actually know what a government is, do you?

[Obvious Leo]

Bob. The next time some deranged psychopath runs amok with an automatic rifle and kills a few dozen children he should be told to go home and he will be notified of his court date in due course. Is this to be official AEP policy?

[bobevenson]

Are you actually suggesting the police are not part of the government?

Not in my country they aren't. They are employees of the state. Teachers in public schools, nurses in public hospitals and garbage collectors aren't part of the government either.

You like talking about government a lot, Bob, but in fact you don't actually know what a government is, do you?

Jesus Christ, have you lost your fucking mind? Who the fuck is the state, my friend, it's the government! The government is the state. That's an easier concept than 1 + 1 = 2. When people call you down under, they're not kidding, are they? I just never realized how far down they meant!

[bobevenson]

Bob. The next time some deranged psychopath runs amok with an automatic rifle and kills a few dozen children he should be told to go home and he will be notified of his court date in due course. Is this to be official AEP policy?

How fucking dense can you be? I'm talking about the millions of people who are eligible to be released on bail. These people should be immediately released without bail. What do I have to do, take you by the fucking hand. I'm beginning to get a very poor impression of the Australian mentality talking to you.

[Obvious Leo]

Who the fuck is the state, my friend, it's the government!

In a totalitarian nation this might be true but not here it isn't. The state is everybody. The government works for the state and is answerable to the state, not the other way around. In Australia the people are the employers and the politicians are merely salaried employees. If the people are dissatisfied with the quality of the workmanship of these salaried employees they have the authority to sack them and appoint more suitable replacements. The US should consider trying this approach instead of forever employing the same brand of shitheads.