News Alabama House approves ‘Aniah’s Law’, named for Walt Harris’ late stepdaughter Aniah Blanchard

[acannxr]

House Bill 81, also known as ‘Aniah’s Law’, requires a suspect to be held without bail “if no condition of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to the accused, the public, or both.”

Members of Blanchard’s family were at the Alabama State House to watch the vote that passed ‘Aniah’s Law’. Blanchard’s mother Angela Harris spoke to media about the new bill.

“She would be fighting for this,” said Harris. “She’s speaking to me and telling me to fight for this. We have to save other people and do everything we can to prevent his from happening to other people.”

https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2020/2/...s-stepdaughter-aniah-blanchard-mma-crime-news

Edit: Added the brief synopsis to add more context to the bill trying to get passed.

To propose an amendment to Section 16 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 16 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama 1901, as amended, to provide that every person charged with a crime, before conviction, be allowed bail by sufficient sureties, unless the person is charged with a Class A felony, when the proof is evident or the presumption is great, if no condition of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to the accused, the public, or both, or ensure the presence of the accused at trial.

https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB81/2020

 

[BEATDOWNS]

Good fuck them!

 

[Buff]

That's not good... Holding people indefinitely on suspicion of crime will cause huge problems.

Theoretically you could now draw up a list of suspects for a crime, arrest them all, and hold them indefinitely until one of them talks... The amount of damage this could do to innocent people's lives doesn't justify the end result.

I had a feeling it would get approved... But its going to cause huge problems for a lot of innocent people, which will lead to more crime.

It's a nice idea on paper, but its highly unethical to lock people up on a whim, and will do.much more harm than good.

 

[OneManGang]

That's not good... Holding people indefinitely on suspicion of crime will cause huge problems.

Theoretically now, try could draw up a list of suspects for a crime, arrest them all, and hold them indefinitely until one of them talks... The amount of damage this could do to innocent people's lives doesn't justify the end result.

I had a feeling it would get approved... But its going to cause huge problems for a lot of innocent people, which will lead to more crime.

It's a nice idea on paper, but its highly unethical to lock people up on a whim, and will do.much more harm than good.

It will cause huge problems for all those violent criminals that I am sure people like you want to release in other people’s neighbourhoods.

 

[Buff]

It will cause huge problems for all those violent criminals that I am sure people like you want to release in other people’s neighbourhoods.

No, bro.

It's going to lead to shitloads of innocent people being being incarcerated for things they didn't do, people being arrested and held for long periods over vague suspicion, which will cause loss of job/home/relationships for innocent people...

Imagine having to explain how you were innocent to your boss who just saw you serve 6 months... Forget about it.

There needs to be some kind of proof or reason to keep a guy in jail... Arresting whoever and keeping them locked up is a massive grey area that is sure to be abused to shit by the authorities. You gotta be kidding me.

 

[OneManGang]

No, bro.

It's going to lead to shitloads of innocent people being being incarcerated for things they didn't do, people being arrested and held for long periods over vague suspicion, which will cause loss of job/home/relationships for innocent people...

Imagine having to explain how you were innocent to your boss who just saw you serve 6 months... Forget about it.

There needs to be some kind of proof or reason to keep a guy in jail... Arresting whoever and keeping them locked up is a massive grey area that is sure to be abused to shit by the authorities.

It’s not done without good reason and it works very well in other countries (civilised countries of course). There won’t be “shitloads” of innocent people incarcerated. The fact is that far more guilty criminals escape because of gullible jurors in the silly jury system.

 

[mortal]

USA has already being doing that with it's secret bases around the world (along with UK of course, in cooperation).

Edit: Actually this one doesn't sound equally bad. Just the snatching and holding part sounds similar.

 

[CerebralKnievel]

That's not good... Holding people indefinitely on suspicion of crime will cause huge problems.

Theoretically you could now draw up a list of suspects for a crime, arrest them all, and hold them indefinitely until one of them talks... The amount of damage this could do to innocent people's lives doesn't justify the end result.

I had a feeling it would get approved... But its going to cause huge problems for a lot of innocent people, which will lead to more crime.

It's a nice idea on paper, but its highly unethical to lock people up on a whim, and will do.much more harm than good.

Strikes me as unconstitutional.

 

[Cooliox]

RIP Aniah,

But does Alabama need to go Guantanamo on this?

Holding a 'suspect' indefinitely???

 

[verbatim]

at least something good came out of this tragic event!

 

[jsbx45]

Fortunately, we have a constitution and a bill of rights. It is a terrible shame what happened to Aniah, but denial of due process to people suspected of a crime is not the solution.

 

[KeepItRealist]

No, bro.

It's going to lead to shitloads of innocent people being being incarcerated for things they didn't do, people being arrested and held for long periods over vague suspicion, which will cause loss of job/home/relationships for innocent people...

Imagine having to explain how you were innocent to your boss who just saw you serve 6 months... Forget about it.

There needs to be some kind of proof or reason to keep a guy in jail... Arresting whoever and keeping them locked up is a massive grey area that is sure to be abused to shit by the authorities. You gotta be kidding me.

Maybe so, but it's more sensible than the way bail reform is being handled.

 

[Buff]

It’s not done without good reason and it works very well in other countries (civilised countries of course). There won’t be “shitloads” of innocent people incarcerated. The fact is that far more guilty criminals escape because of gullible jurors in the silly jury system.

Bro, that's exactly what the law is meant to do... Lock people up without conviction. In other words innocent people... I say innocent because it's "innocent until proven guilty", and the whole point of this law is to lock people up before they've been proben guilty.

Sure, if there's a smoking gun scenario, overwhelming evidence, then that's that... But this law leaves too much opportunity to abuse... I could call your local police station and say you tried to kill me, and until it's proven you didn't, you're locked up - your entire life knows this and is reacting, your boss, your spouse, and so on.

I'm In England by the way... Here we have a slightly different legal process, which isn't ideal either... People get remanded a lot more, but usually there's circumstantial proof to keep them in, with the intention being to not allow them to commit more... But it's handled very differently. And we have a reoffending issue too.

It is a nice idea on paper, but will cause massive problems for a lot of individuals, families, businesses, and lives...

 

[Buff]

Maybe so, but it's more sensible than the way bail reform is being handled.

I don't know enough about that to comment.

RIP Aniah Blanchard by the way... I don't mean to sound cold in all of this... It's just a moral clusterfuck to do what that bill is allowing.

 

[KeepItRealist]

USA has already being doing that with it's secret bases around the world (along with UK of course, in cooperation).

Edit: Actually this one doesn't sound equally bad. Just the snatching and holding part sounds similar.

And literally hundreds of inmates who critics said were innocent and being persecuted were then recaptured or killed after being released and rejoining terrorist groups. So that should all always be mentioned when this is brought up. US troops are expected to be CSI investigators apparently.

 

[mortal]

No one read the bill or actually comprehended it. ^^^^

I'm guilty of not reading but....I'm not in the mood right now. ~_~ lol

 

[KeepItRealist]

I don't know enough about that to comment.

RIP Aniah Blanchard by the way... I don't mean to sound cold in all of this... It's just a moral clusterfuck to do what that bill is allowing.

Well-meaning laws and policies are always abused. Whether it's bail reform or the opposite like this. Too early to tell is this is anything but politicians again doing something for the appearance of fighting crime (or terror), rather than something that will be properly used and actually be useful. Or just another law on the books that law enforcement doesn't use or only in special circumstances.

 

[Buff]

RIP Aniah,

But does Alabama need to go Guantanamo on this?

Holding a 'suspect' indefinitely???

It also didn't state "suspect" in the singular...

In other words they could theoreticaly arrest everyone on the same street that a murder was committed on until someone owned up or snitched.

This bill was drawn up super fast. There's an awful lot of holes in it that benefit the state, not the individuals, and whenever that happens, the public always loses.

 

[bigmacbub]

Lol by reading page 1 it's apparent the majority are clueless on what this bill actually does. They won't do a line up of ppl then detain all. Nor is it too "lock up" without conviction. The Bill states BAIL can be denied and you can be detained if your release may cause harm to the community, yourself of both. Also to ensure you attend trial and or an extremely high probability you are guilty. Pretty straight forward and easy to understand.

 

[UFCBlackbelt]

No, bro.

It's going to lead to shitloads of innocent people being being incarcerated for things they didn't do, people being arrested and held for long periods over vague suspicion, which will cause loss of job/home/relationships for innocent people...

Imagine having to explain how you were innocent to your boss who just saw you serve 6 months... Forget about it.

There needs to be some kind of proof or reason to keep a guy in jail... Arresting whoever and keeping them locked up is a massive grey area that is sure to be abused to shit by the authorities. You gotta be kidding me.

I believe the cause here is reasonably, the court will be sensitive to this due to potential violations of the Eighth amendment. This will likely be reserved for criminals with a violent history.