Pages

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh questions legality of bail defendants can't afford

Maryland's top legal officer has concluded that the state's system of holding defendants in jail because they can't afford to pay cash bail likely would be found unconstitutional.

In a letter sent Tuesday to five House of Delegates members who sought his opinion, Attorney General Brian E. Frosh told them that judges and court commissioners must take into account the accused's ability to pay before setting bail. He said that if bail is out of reach for a defendant, the courts would find that unlawful.

"You can't imprison someone for poverty," Frosh said in an interview. "For one guy, $1,000 bail is no big deal. For somebody else, they might not have 100 bucks, much less $1,000."

More

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

let the criminals out and attack the good people--this country is becoming a joke.. Frosh is a wacko liberal

Anonymous said...

Let the court speak to this issue themselves.
Until then, follow the law.

Anonymous said...

frosh is an idiot
high bail is not constitutional
but banning guns, mags, ect is?

he really needs to be gone

Anonymous said...

The bond amount is set by the severity of the crime. The ability to pay should have nothing to do with it. Just another liberal Democrat trying to keep criminals on the street.

Anonymous said...

Another example of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" being a load of crap.
The WORST example is the fact that one loses their license immediately for six months for refusing to take a Breathalyzer test.
America...Freedom - is becoming a thing of the past.

Anonymous said...

Frosh They committed a crime perhaps they should have thought about the costs if they were caught ahead of time. Most of whom you refer to also get a free attorney from the PUblic Defenders office as well as. When in your opinion do you actually hold people accountable ? Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

lmclain said...

They are not being imprisoned because they are poor.
They are being imprisoned because they committed a crime.
What does this idiot want to do?? Release a gang banger who just shot 3 people in cold blood because he's too poor to pay bail?
Did this dummy even THINK before making ANOTHER excuse for coddling criminals?
keep cheering.

Anonymous said...

Who decides how much an accused person can pay for bail, and what would be the criteria?

Anonymous said...

No need to be concerned if you don't get locked up. Put the burden on the defendant, not the courts.

Anonymous said...

Really? Last thought I'd think you'd have! Again what part of we are innocent until proven guilty do you not understand? Your getting to be a lost soul man. You used to stand our bill of rights and our Constitution.

Anonymous said...

Sliding scale as a doctor office makes. Ss#s can be ran to see taxes, income ,etc

Anonymous said...

So who's to stop the government from rounding up everyone on trumped up charges with bonds they know nobody could afford and say????? Have an election?

Anonymous said...

So, John X, who has completely reported income on his W-2 gets his bail set according to his income, while John Y, whose reported income is zero because it's all from cash drug proceeds, walks?
Sounds fair to me! (NOT!)

Anonymous said...

America better wake up .

Anonymous said...

Criminals need to be held in case they try to run...setting bail ensures they go to trial..if you do the crime you do the time...it's stupid to let criminals run loose..Frosh is a moron...

Anonymous said...

He and Elizabeth Warren deserve each other!

Anonymous said...


Frosh is an escapee from the Glendenning, O'Malley, Pelosi, etc. School of Rabble Rousing and Nanny State.

Bail permits an arrested and charged person limited freedom until their trial, or disposition of the case. They pay for this temporary 'get out of jail' card with personal or borrowed cash, as a form of pre-paid ransom. Win-win for charged and system, most of the time.

Bail is generally set in some relation to the nature of the alleged crime and with an eye toward whether the defendant is likely to flee; more serious crime or greater flight risk merit higher bail. If the defendant disappears, they forfeit their bail.

Rich and poor alike may choose to break the law; it should come as no surprise to anyone but Frosh that a serious offense by someone with fewer resources may cause the accused more inconvenience in the form of no bail, or a bail that puts the hurt on their cash flow.

Kind of ties to the 'do the crime; do the time' concept.