https://abc13.com/teens-bond-set-at-$1- ... g/5618430/
Beto the gift that keeps giving.
TX: the $1 bond comes to Houston for burglary
Re: TX: the $1 bond comes to Houston for burglary
If I was making my living as a criminal, I would go to Houston.
And FYI, I hate thieves.
And FYI, I hate thieves.
Do what you say you're gonna do.
Re: TX: the $1 bond comes to Houston for burglary
I've said before Houston is trying to become the Chicago of Texas. This does not disprove my theory.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
____________
-
Soccerdad1995
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4340
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm
Re: TX: the $1 bond comes to Houston for burglary
I have mixed feelings on the whole topic of cash bail.
I understand that the point of bail is to balance the rights of a (presumed innocent) defendant to freedom while they are pending trial, with the need to ensure that defendants actually show up for trial. On the one hand, we could lock up everyone suspected of a crime to make sure that no guilty folks flee. On the other hand, we could let everyone stay free until a jury had formally convicted them, and just trust that they wouldn't take off. Neither extreme makes logical sense.
So we split the difference and say that we will let people stay free, but we will make them put enough wealth at risk that they would not dare flee. Ideally that means they risk not only their own money but also a close relative's house, etc. It has to be enough to make the mental equation, for that person, such that they would not dare refuse to show up for their trial.
But that question of "how much is enough" necessarily varies from one individual to another. Not only their personal wealth, but also the wealth of their family, and even the morals and ethics of the suspect. If a suspect doesn't mind the idea of his mom losing her house, then not even that will be enough for him / her.
So I am not opposed to the idea of basing bail amounts on the resources of the defendant, among other factors. But $1 is not enough to compel anyone to come to trial if they are otherwise inclined to make a run for it.
I understand that the point of bail is to balance the rights of a (presumed innocent) defendant to freedom while they are pending trial, with the need to ensure that defendants actually show up for trial. On the one hand, we could lock up everyone suspected of a crime to make sure that no guilty folks flee. On the other hand, we could let everyone stay free until a jury had formally convicted them, and just trust that they wouldn't take off. Neither extreme makes logical sense.
So we split the difference and say that we will let people stay free, but we will make them put enough wealth at risk that they would not dare flee. Ideally that means they risk not only their own money but also a close relative's house, etc. It has to be enough to make the mental equation, for that person, such that they would not dare refuse to show up for their trial.
But that question of "how much is enough" necessarily varies from one individual to another. Not only their personal wealth, but also the wealth of their family, and even the morals and ethics of the suspect. If a suspect doesn't mind the idea of his mom losing her house, then not even that will be enough for him / her.
So I am not opposed to the idea of basing bail amounts on the resources of the defendant, among other factors. But $1 is not enough to compel anyone to come to trial if they are otherwise inclined to make a run for it.
Re: TX: the $1 bond comes to Houston for burglary
$1 bond is a joke and a slap in the face of law abiding citizens.