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

[Buff]

Very simply, this part, the old part says "innocent until proven guilty unless there is overwhelming evidence the suspect is danger"



This part, the new law says that the state can do what it wants and fuck your rights.



It didn't say anything about proof, evidence, circumstance... Just "if tjis person might be violent, were keeping his ass in jail forever".

Fuck that law.

 

[acannxr]

@Buff @OneManGang @mortal @CerebralKnievel @Cooliox @jsbx45 @KeepItRealist @bigmacbub @UFCBlackbelt

I copied the brief synopsis and pasted it in the OP to add context to the bill.

 

[Talon81]

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.

So fuck "innocent until proven guilty" then right? I swear people that hate the constitution and principles our country was founded on can go somewhere else or fuck themselves for all I care

 

[n...not crazy]

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.

Everything is already fucked. People are held for YEARS before they even get a trial.

Not Guilty? Well I hope you had fun in jail for 2 years...

 

[usernamee]

I can't wait for Walt's return. He is going to get a massive welcoming by the fans I think

Edit: Oh he is fighting The Reem next, god damn, Alistair gets no breaks. I have a feeling there might be some anger taken out in a brutal GnP sequence while he is already out..

 

[mortal]

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.

Normally I'd ask for sources but I can't be bothered. I'll take your word for this convo;
So you're saying it's right/fair/good? Welp then, I hope you get to enjoy it yourself at some point in your life.

Nevermind that the whole "terrorism" and "terrorist groups" thing isn't that simple on it's own. For instance, not all kinds of terrorists and terrorism acts are being called out...

I know I'm barking at the wrong tree though. w.e

 

[chiefwiggum]

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.

i obviously haven’t read the bill but just the synopsis. (Which isn’t enough to for a solid opinion)
But I agree with you.
Just another bizarre law to obscure your rights under the guise of protection and feelings and fear.

 

[Buff]

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.

Bro, that's exactly what the bill includes... Multiple parties, no need for proof, and indefinite detention on basic suspicion.

There are too many grey areas that benefit the state over the individual.

 

[KeepItRealist]

Normally I'd ask for sources but I can't be bothered. I'll take your word for this convo;
So you're saying it's right/fair/good? Welp then, I hope you get to enjoy it yourself at some point in your life.

Nevermind that the whole "terrorism" and "terrorist groups" thing isn't that simple on it's own. For instance, not all kinds of terrorists and terrorism acts are being called out...

I know I'm barking at the wrong tree though. w.e

If you don't know that hundreds who were imprisoned at Gitmo were released and recaptured or killed, then you know nothing about the rendition and internment program anyway. Just freaking Google it to be a little educated.

I'm saying that it's quite absurd to expect soldiers on the battlefield to collect more evidence a person is a terrorist other than being captured on the battlefield fighting as a terrorist. And not just visiting relatives or friends in a Taliban stronghold and happened to wander into a firefight, like European journalists actually touted as a reasonable defense for these people.

 

[Buff]

@Buff @OneManGang @mortal @CerebralKnievel @Cooliox @jsbx45 @KeepItRealist @bigmacbub @UFCBlackbelt

I copied the brief synopsis and pasted it in the OP to add context to the bill.

I've been following this case with great opposition.

It's just another way to scare people into happily signing away their human rights... Sure, it will save some lives, but it will destroy lots of others at the same time.

 

[Buff]

Everything is already fucked. People are held for YEARS before they even get a trial.

Not Guilty? Well I hope you had fun in jail for 2 years...

They've just added a nice shot of steroids to the ass of that problem.

 

[The Bard]

This is going to put a lot of pressure and scrutiny on the bail-setting judge, which in turn will likely lead to more no-bond holds.

Of course it's only for capital offenses, but it's also an incentive for law enforcement to overcharge.

Likely will be found unconstitutional on its face if appealed from a state case into the U.S. Supreme Court. It's well-settled law that defendants are entitled to bail (more or less, anyway).

 

[UFCBlackbelt]

So fuck "innocent until proven guilty" then right? I swear you people that hate the constitution and principles our country was founded on can go somewhere else or fuck yourselves for all I care

Bail is separate from innocent until proven guilty. Innocence until proven guilty refers to the default judgment and who holds the burden of proof in a trial case. It does not mean we treat a person in all aspects until they are proven guilty, otherwise there would be no jail system at all.

I think the issue with this law has less to do with the Constitution, the Constitution does not guarantee absolute bail but asserts against unusual fine and punishment. Courts are sensitive to deny bail, but they do have the ability to do so - guidance based per the the Bail Reform Act of 1984. It's not unusual that bail is denied for murder cases at all. The bigger issue here is the economic cost. As mentioned in the H.B., this will be reserved for class A felonies. I'm not aware of how many Class A Felonies exist, but this will include forms of aggravated robbery, arson, etc. If the average cost of an inmate in jail for one year is $33,000. We can expect a rise in the cost of already overpopulated jails. That will come out of the taxpayer's pocket.

 

[mortal]

If you don't know that hundreds who were imprisoned at Gitmo were released and recaptured, then you know nothing about the rendition and internment program anyway. Just freaking Google it to a little educated.

I'm saying that it's quite absurd to expect soldiers on the battlefield to collect more evidence a person is a terrorist other than being captured on the battlefield fighting as a terrorist. And not just visiting relatives or friends in a Taliban stronghold and happened to wander into a firefight, like European journalists actually touted as a reasonable defense for these people.

Do you have any idea how many things happen in the world? Happened in the past as well? Add those to personal matters and, yeah, it's highly likely that someone (me in this instance won't know every single detail about it).

What's really absurd is to create strawmen in other countries just so you can send your army to knock them down. Now you'll ask for a TL;DR version of decades of history at least. I don't have it.

I'm not expecting them to be anything in their fight for total domination and futher enrichment of the rich. Even several your own soldiers (assuming you're from USA) are more realistic about it than many citizens are for crying out loud.

You excused in that post the "mistaken" kidnappings. Ok, cool. I bet you've excused worse things anyway. Anything can be excused though if you try enough.
If tomorrow the US govrnment starts to snatch its own people off the streets, they'll find an excuse (then they'll make it known via the media and people like you will accept it as the sole truth and fact). It seems ok when it's not happening to you.

 

[UFCBlackbelt]

Bro, that's exactly what the bill includes... Multiple parties, no need for proof, and indefinite detention on basic suspicion.

There are too many grey areas that benefit the state over the individual.

This isn't accurate. There is a bail hearing that is made when bail is set. Attorneys will present their case and evidence to support or deny the conclusion that the defendant can reasonably be released. This has always been how bail is set, nothing has changed in this regard.

Currently, the Alabama constitution allows bail for all persons "unless the person is charged with a capital offense and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption of guilt is great."

The main difference is that this bill changes the structure for Class A felony bail hearings. The prosecutor will essentially be responsible for demonstrating that the evidence of guilt is substantial. Even if other qualifying factors that traditionally would warrant a bail are present, this bill would overshadow those.

 

[Buff]

This isn't accurate. There is a bail hearing that is made when bail is set. Attorneys will present their case and evidence to support or deny the conclusion that the defendant can reasonably be released. This has always been how bail is set, nothing has changed in this regard.

Currently, the Alabama constitution allows bail for all persons "unless the person is charged with a capital offense and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption of guilt is great."

The main difference is that this bill changes the structure for Class A felony bail hearings. The prosecutor will essentially be responsible for demonstrating that the evidence of guilt is substantial. Even if other qualifying factors that traditionally would warrant a bail are present, this bill would overshadow those.

Fair enough... Again, I'm in England and I honestly don't know the difference between Felony classes, what the constitution says in full, and we don't have a bail bond system. Only America and the Phillipines have one, actually. I may be speaking with some ignorance and inaccuracy, but I don't think I'm 100 miles away from it either.

What I gain from your post though is that the law proper to the change says "innocent until proven guilty unless there is overwhelming evidence of guilt... I like that.



Which has now been altered to "the prosecutor will give his opinions, no more facts or proof, just an option of why an individual should be incarcerated in the highly lucrative slave labour prison system until we say so"...



This is about as corrupt as it gets.

 

[mortal]

@KeepItRealist I missed something and didn't comment on it (but, like I said, I'm in the mood right now so I will be missing things left and right).

You mentioned European journalists in your comment. Most of them (if not all of them) are pro-USA, pro-west and, of course, pro-globalism. Now you know.

 

[OneManGang]

So fuck "innocent until proven guilty" then right? I swear people that hate the constitution and principles our country was founded on can go somewhere else or fuck themselves for all I care

What a stupid thing to say. Pure dumb.

 

[Buff]

So fuck "innocent until proven guilty" then right? I swear people that hate the constitution and principles our country was founded on can go somewhere else or fuck themselves for all I care

That doesn't make sense dude... The whole point of democracy is resolving political differences of opinion... That would include the constitution.

Think about it.

 

[UFCBlackbelt]

Fair enough... Again, I'm in England and I honestly don't know the difference between Felony classes, what the constitution says in full, and we don't have a bail bond system. Only America and the Phillipines have one, actually. I may be speaking with some ignorance and inaccuracy, but I don't think I'm 100 miles away from it either.

What I gain from your post though is that the law proper to the change says "innocent until proven guilty unless there is overwhelming evidence of guilt... I like that.

View attachment 735291

Which has now been altered to "the prosecutor will give his opinions, no more facts or proof, just an option of why an individual should be incarcerated in the highly lucrative slave labour prison system until we say so"...

View attachment 735293

This is about as corrupt as it gets.

I think you are misinterpreting my post.

Bail in Alabama can already be denied for Capital offenses when there is substantial guilt, even before this bill. Many states follow this paradigm. Bail has little to do with innocence until proven guilty, I mentioned this in a previous post. . The Bail debate has already been settled in the past in the Bail Reform Act of 1984 so this is immaterial to the discussion.

The change from how things were before and what this bill is just refers to the level of crime where bail may be denied. Instead of it being for Capital Offenses (capital offense are charges punishable by death, considered the highest level of crime), now Felony Class A crimes (the second highest crime level) are also included. There are no basic opinions in bail hearings. Evidence is still required.

So for example, in this case if we have DNA evidence linking the criminal to the scene and a criminal history, as well as video surveillance of him being there when the crime occurred, this is pretty substantial evidence. In the past however, class A felonies bond denials were based on flight risk and danger to society, not case-related evidence.

Does this mean the bar has been set lower for denying class A felony bonds? Yes. Does this mean that it is a matter of opinion without facts or proof? No.