Md. judges instructed to impose 'least onerous conditions' when setting bail
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (WBFF) -- Maryland's Chief District Judge is instructing judges to impose the "least onerous conditions" on defendants when setting bail.
That could mean lightening the burden a bit for a defendant, when appropriate.
The order comes after an opinion from Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who says holding defendants because they can't afford bail likely would be found unconstitutional.
As a Juror, I saw this first hand. There was an elderly man who was charged falsely with rape who sat in the County detention center for over a year. The poor man had a broken back and was disabled from an accident several years before. He lost his home and his job because of this. She admitted to this later on because he had befriended her and allowed her to live in his home until she could find another place to live. He ended up kicking her out of his home, and in retaliation she charged him with rape. The man was poor and could not afford to pay the bail. As a result, he lost everything, This was back in 2010 when I sat in on this case. Nothing happened to woman who falsely accused him of this.
It brings up the question of why there is bail at all, other than to be a partial guarantee that the accused will show up for court. It seems that too often it's more of a pretrial punishment than anything else, one that can have devastating results on those with few resources and regular responsibilities.
1) Elderly men are NOT sexual threats and this guy should have had no bail upon him.
2) Young poor people who commit violent or otherwise harmful crimes should remain locked up for the protection of the Public. Making bail high enough to keep them in jail is a GOOD idea.
people really need to educate themselves on the various functions of gov't at all levels. gov't is designed to do our bidding, not take care of us or run our lives. and it does require some effort from all of us from time to time.
As a Juror, I saw this first hand. There was an elderly man who was charged falsely with rape who sat in the County detention center for over a year. The poor man had a broken back and was disabled from an accident several years before. He lost his home and his job because of this. She admitted to this later on because he had befriended her and allowed her to live in his home until she could find another place to live.
ReplyDeleteHe ended up kicking her out of his home, and in retaliation she charged him with rape. The man was poor and could not afford to pay the bail. As a result, he lost everything, This was back in 2010 when I sat in on this case. Nothing happened to woman who falsely accused him of this.
But lawful MD residents cant exercise their 2nd amendment rights?
ReplyDeleteIt brings up the question of why there is bail at all, other than to be a partial guarantee that the accused will show up for court. It seems that too often it's more of a pretrial punishment than anything else, one that can have devastating results on those with few resources and regular responsibilities.
ReplyDeletePC folks at it again
ReplyDelete1) Elderly men are NOT sexual threats and this guy should have had no bail upon him.
ReplyDelete2) Young poor people who commit violent or otherwise harmful crimes should remain locked up for the protection of the Public. Making bail high enough to keep them in jail is a GOOD idea.
3) Everybody has a right to a speedy trial.
1:42 that woman should have been shot.If she did that to me she would be.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteA large number of reported cases already impose 'least onerous'. What is burdensome about 'personal recognizance'?
So he's advocating 'personal recognizance' in all situations?
Frosh is O'Malley without a banjo.
people really need to educate themselves on the various functions of gov't at all levels. gov't is designed to do our bidding, not take care of us or run our lives. and it does require some effort from all of us from time to time.
ReplyDelete