Justice Department: Bail Unconstitutional for Poor Folks

No surprise, bleeding heart liberals will probably cheer this:

Quote:

Holding defendants in jail because they can't afford to make bail is unconstitutional, the Justice Department said in a court filing late Thursday — the first time the government has taken such a position before a federal appeals court. It's the latest step by the Obama administration in encouraging state courts to move away from imposing fixed cash bail amounts and jailing those who can't pay.

Oddly enough, I tend to agree with them on the case at hand:

Quote:

The filing came in the case of Maurice Walker of Calhoun, Georgia. He was kept in jail for six nights after police arrested him for the misdemeanor offense of being a pedestrian under the influence. He was told he could not get out of jail unless he paid the fixed bail amount of $160.

In this case, it's such a minor offense and the bail is so ridiculously low that it's hard to argue that the threat of its forfeiture would be sufficient to ensure Walker's appearance in court.

But making that a rule is tricky, and the proposal by the Justice Department is logically flawed:

Quote:

"Fixed bail schedules that allow for the pretrial release of only those who can play, without accounting for the ability to pay," the government said, "unlawfully discriminate based on indigence."

I was not aware that the indigent are a protected class. Second, consider two defendants charged with more serious crimes, requiring heftier bail. Do we let the indigent defendant out on his own recognizance, but not the middle-class one? This defies the whole rationale for bail; a middle class defendant has more ties to the community and is less able to bolt than a homeless person who only needs to cadge enough funds to afford a bus ticket.

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2bc6Iid