Why Do Judges Offer Bail?

[Meclazine for Israel]

I noticed that in the US Justice System, the judge usually sets a bail amount, and in severe cases, that amount simply increases to ridiculous levels in proportion to the gruesome details of the case.

It's then up to the prosecution to put forward an oppositional argument as to why bail should be refused.

https://abc7chicago.com/takeoff-killed-murder-who-migos-rapper/12654816/

"HOUSTON, Texas -- The man charged with the murder of Migos rapper Takeoff is out of jail on a $1 million bond."

"Initially, Clark's bond was set at $2 million, but Judge Josh Hill agreed to lower it to $1 million. Hill ruled that previous statements made by Clark indicated that he could pay a $1 million bail and that there are bail bond companies that would take on that risk."

For argument's sake, let us just assert that the guy committed the crime. Therefore, it is highly probable he will either abscond, commit suicide or kill more people. If you are charged with murder or rape, then surely it is in the public interest to keep them safe by locking you up.

If the evidence presented by the D.A. has a reasonable chance of successful prosecution, then the judge should act.

So why do US judges set bail at all in murder and rape cases?

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Eighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

No bail is probably excessive by virtue of being the most extreme case possible

[Benjamin Frank]

A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The release of the defendant from jail before his or her trial is favored under the principle of the presumption of innocence, provided that bail is met. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution also supports this stance, by prohibiting courts from setting excessive bails. However, in cases where the defendant is being charged with a very serious crime and is considered likely to pose a danger to the public, it is widely accepted that he may be held without bail.

https://tinyurl.com/58tsvd2b

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The release of the defendant from jail before his or her trial is favored under the principle of the presumption of innocence, provided that bail is met. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution also supports this stance, by prohibiting courts from setting excessive bails. However, in cases where the defendant is being charged with a very serious crime and is considered likely to pose a danger to the public, it is widely accepted that he may be held without bail.

https://tinyurl.com/58tsvd2b

The presumption of innocence is a concept for trial.  The defendant is presumed to be innocent and is not required to prove innocence.  It is the government that must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty.

That being said, when a defendant is formally charged with a crime, the government has (presumably) met the standard of Probable Cause, meaning that there is reason to believe that (A) a specific crime(s) has been committed at specified times and places and (B) the evidence indicates that the person named as the defendant committed the crime.  That's not enough to prove a defendant guilty at trial; it's just the standard for charging a person.  However, in most states, when a prosecutor chooses to file formal charges they have to state in some manner that they will be able to produce sufficient evidence at trial to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The idea that prosecutors throw as much mud as they can in the process and see what sticks is the stuff of Law and Order reruns. 

[Ferguson97]

It honestly doesn't make any sense. If someone is a significant flight risk or poses a danger to the public, then they should be held until the trial. If someone is not a flight risk and doesn't pose a danger to the public, then what's the justification for holding them at all before the trial? All it does is negatively impact poorer defendants.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

The idea that prosecutors throw as much mud as they can in the process and see what sticks is the stuff of Law and Order reruns. 

No it’s not, dude, it happens all the time. It’s what they do to get a plea deal out of defendants and still rack up a hefty sentence.

[SWE]

"throw as much mud as they can in the process and see what sticks" is a pretty succinct description of the average prosecutor, actually

[Pouring Rain and Blairing Music]

"throw as much mud as they can in the process and see what sticks" is a pretty succinct description of the average prosecutor, actually

Honestly, in the jury I served in, that went for the defense too.

[Benjamin Frank]

A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The release of the defendant from jail before his or her trial is favored under the principle of the presumption of innocence, provided that bail is met. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution also supports this stance, by prohibiting courts from setting excessive bails. However, in cases where the defendant is being charged with a very serious crime and is considered likely to pose a danger to the public, it is widely accepted that he may be held without bail.

https://tinyurl.com/58tsvd2b

The presumption of innocence is a concept for trial.  The defendant is presumed to be innocent and is not required to prove innocence.  It is the government that must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty.

That being said, when a defendant is formally charged with a crime, the government has (presumably) met the standard of Probable Cause, meaning that there is reason to believe that (A) a specific crime(s) has been committed at specified times and places and (B) the evidence indicates that the person named as the defendant committed the crime.  That's not enough to prove a defendant guilty at trial; it's just the standard for charging a person.  However, in most states, when a prosecutor chooses to file formal charges they have to state in some manner that they will be able to produce sufficient evidence at trial to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The idea that prosecutors throw as much mud as they can in the process and see what sticks is the stuff of Law and Order reruns.  

This is certainly ironic coming from you given that you were all about 'alternative facts' and not believing the government when it came to Covid. Yet here you are saying 'we need to trust the government' (the police, prosecutors and the courts are all part of the government.) While you didn't ultimately tie that in to bail, I think your implicit view here is that those accused of crimes should remain in jail after being charged.

[Benjamin Frank]

"throw as much mud as they can in the process and see what sticks" is a pretty succinct description of the average prosecutor, actually

Honestly, in the jury I served in, that went for the defense too.

From watching (and reading) not Law and Order but much true crime, that is especially true. The defense is allowed to make all sorts of reckless allegations without evidence including that of evidence tampering or outright planting of evidence and attempt to suggest others are guilty of the crime, either general speculation of 'others' or speculation on specific individuals.

In regards to Law and Order. Certainly it is a drama television show, but my understanding is that show frequently uses actual cases but alters names. How much they stick to the related actual trial or trial transcripts I don't know, but I suspect they don't actually stray too far.

My favorite fact about Law and Order though is that while it is one of the longest running shows on television, it was based on an earlier television show  Arrest and Trial, that was cancelled after a single season running from 1963-64. This to me shows how much luck plays in success. After the pilot episode of Law and Order named 'pilot' the second episode was named 'Arrest and Trial.'

[The Arizonan]

I think the bail system is inconsistent. A woman got charged one million dollars for bail just for chopping off her husband’s junk and whereas murderers get charged less than that.

[Benjamin Frank]

I think the bail system is inconsistent. A woman got charged one million dollars for bail just for chopping off her husband’s junk and whereas murderers get charged less than that.

Hard cases make bad law.

[Badger]

A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The release of the defendant from jail before his or her trial is favored under the principle of the presumption of innocence, provided that bail is met. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution also supports this stance, by prohibiting courts from setting excessive bails. However, in cases where the defendant is being charged with a very serious crime and is considered likely to pose a danger to the public, it is widely accepted that he may be held without bail.

https://tinyurl.com/58tsvd2b

The presumption of innocence is a concept for trial.  The defendant is presumed to be innocent and is not required to prove innocence.  It is the government that must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty.

That being said, when a defendant is formally charged with a crime, the government has (presumably) met the standard of Probable Cause, meaning that there is reason to believe that (A) a specific crime(s) has been committed at specified times and places and (B) the evidence indicates that the person named as the defendant committed the crime.  That's not enough to prove a defendant guilty at trial; it's just the standard for charging a person.  However, in most states, when a prosecutor chooses to file formal charges they have to state in some manner that they will be able to produce sufficient evidence at trial to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The idea that prosecutors throw as much mud as they can in the process and see what sticks is the stuff of Law and Order reruns. 

Not true. Most states have initial bail set prior to a case going to Grand Jury to find at least probable cause. And probable cause is not a high bar at all. It doesn't mean evidence of fire, but rather that the grand jury simply smells smoke.

[Benjamin Frank]

A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The release of the defendant from jail before his or her trial is favored under the principle of the presumption of innocence, provided that bail is met. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution also supports this stance, by prohibiting courts from setting excessive bails. However, in cases where the defendant is being charged with a very serious crime and is considered likely to pose a danger to the public, it is widely accepted that he may be held without bail.

https://tinyurl.com/58tsvd2b

The presumption of innocence is a concept for trial.  The defendant is presumed to be innocent and is not required to prove innocence.  It is the government that must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty.

That being said, when a defendant is formally charged with a crime, the government has (presumably) met the standard of Probable Cause, meaning that there is reason to believe that (A) a specific crime(s) has been committed at specified times and places and (B) the evidence indicates that the person named as the defendant committed the crime.  That's not enough to prove a defendant guilty at trial; it's just the standard for charging a person.  However, in most states, when a prosecutor chooses to file formal charges they have to state in some manner that they will be able to produce sufficient evidence at trial to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The idea that prosecutors throw as much mud as they can in the process and see what sticks is the stuff of Law and Order reruns. 

Not true. Most states have initial bail set prior to a case going to Grand Jury to find at least probable cause. And probable cause is not a high bar at all. It doesn't mean evidence of fire, but rather that the grand jury simply smells smoke.

To be fair though, the prosecution itself is supposed to meet a number of tests before even laying a charge include a likelihood of conviction.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Incredible.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-mexico-murder-suspect-large-after-allegedly-cutting/story?id=96982673

Why would you let this guy have freedom when he is charged with 1st Degree Murder?