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

[Buff]

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. Bail is also not a right, however protection from cruel and unusual punishment is. 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.

Good post, thanks for explaining.

So literally the only change that has been to the law is the addition of class A felonies to the existing capital crimes bill and that's it?

Why am I interpreting it as a change in the way evidence needs to be presented? I thought this was an amendment to which and how people could be held, not for what crimes they had been committed.

 

[Talon81]

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.

Lets just start with this though....
this isn't a democracy. Its a republic, with aspects of a democracy, and our constitution has been seriously undermined because of people wanting to "interpret" language that is fairly plain. We have already adopted to varying degrees (obviously not 100%) all 10 planks of the communist manifesto. We have a self-proclaimed socialist getting a huge amount of votes to be our president. Can you imagine that 50 years ago, let alone 100 years ago? Socialism is diametrically opposed to the intent of our constitution. There is literally no area of our lives that the government is not involved in. The US cannot even claim to be the country with the most freedom anymore. Much of this is because we have allowed outsiders to dictate our politics.

As for my last statement, it was not about the idea of being held without bail, but about his nonchalant attitude towards innocent people being held indefinitely without sufficient evidence.

That said, of course discourse is good and differences of opinion need resolution, but within the obvious bounds of a constitution which prioritizes freedom. As Jefferson said "those who would trade freedom for safety deserve freedom nor safety"

 

[Espresso]

FUCK THIS LAW.

SO UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

This needs to stop

 

[Buff]

Lets just start with this though....
this isn't a democracy. Its a republic, with aspects of a democracy, and our constitution has been seriously undermined because of people wanting to "interpret" language that is fairly plain. We have already adopted to varying degrees (obviously not 100%) all 10 planks of the communist manifesto. We have a self-proclaimed socialist getting a huge amount of votes to be our president. Can you imagine that 50 years ago, let alone 100 years ago? Socialism is diametrically opposed to the intent of our constitution. There is literally no area of our lives that the government is not involved in. The US cannot even claim to be the country with the most freedom anymore. Much of this is because we have allowed outsiders to dictate our politics.

As for my last statement, it was not about the idea of being held without bail, but about his nonchalant attitude towards innocent people being held indefinitely without sufficient evidence.

I'm totally with you on the last paragraph... I've been saying this throughout the thread. It's ethically reprehensible.

Your explanation on the first part makes a lot more sense and in a a lot more digestible than the original "of they don't like it they can get out" sweeping statement... I'm a socialist at heart. And very left wing.

I'm posting this from the other side of the Atlantic from you, and we have our own stacks of legal shit over here that I'm strongly opposed to in my own shot glass as well... Brexit being a key example. I hate it. But now I literally don't have any other options because the whole point of it is to keep people trapped here.

 

[mortal]

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.

Democracy is about the people holding the power but we don't see anywhere anything like that...
To those that disagree: No, being allowed to pick a card from somebody's marked deck is not what I'd call democratic.

Sorry for interrupting btw but it's one of the things that grinds my gears. I had to say something.

 

[markys00]

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.

Or non violent criminals

 

[Buff]

Democracy is about the people holding the power but we don't see anywhere anything like that...
To those that disagree: No, being allowed to pick a card from somebody's marked deck is not what I'd call democratic.

Sorry for interrupting btw but it's one of the things that grinds my gears. I had to say something.

Makes sense.

I don't think it's possible to interrupt on an internet forum though... it's in the word.

 

[loyalyolayal]

Horrible. This is how the criminal justice system in countries with high conviction rate (Japan) works.

 

[welcometohavoc]

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

Boggles my mind how a guy with a history of violence towards women with multiple arrests was allowed to make bail just so he could kidnap and murder an innocent young woman a few days later.

 

[Kono dio da!]

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.

Bail is a privilege and not a right. It is granted at the court's discretion. If it is abundantly clear that the accused will not commit another offense, flee or harass witnesses and the conditions existing in the US equivalent of a criminal procedure act adequately restrict his or her behavior and can guarantee his presence in court, then courts will grant bail. This man had a propensity to go flee or repeat the offense. Besides he hasn't been convicted either, has he? If he's acquitted then it'll never appear on his record.
I understand that it's unfair and open to abuse, especially against black people and how racist and biased the justice system in the states is. But bail is granted subject to a balancing act. The accused's interests, society's interests and justice (in an abstract sense and the court's image in the public eye).
If he is indeed the guy and he goes on and hurts another woman, absconds and gets away Scott's free. That means the public and the court has been fucked. Whereas the worst case scenario if someone falls victim to this law and he turns out to be innocent would be nothing compared to the example I have above. Plus I'm sure you can sue the state for that shit anyway.
I'm all for this law. It protects women.

 

[Talon81]

Bail is a privilege and not a right. It is granted at the court's discretion. If it is abundantly clear that the accused will not commit another offense, flee or harass witnesses and the conditions existing in the US equivalent of a criminal procedure act adequately restrict his or her behavior and can guarantee his presence in court, then courts will grant bail. This man had a propensity to go flee or repeat the offense. Besides he hasn't been convicted either, has he? If he's acquitted then it'll never appear on his record.
I understand that it's unfair and open to abuse, especially against black people and how racist and biased the justice system in the states is. But bail is granted subject to a balancing act. The accused's interests, society's interests and justice (in an abstract sense and the court's image in the public eye).
If he is indeed the guy and he goes on and hurts another woman, absconds and gets away Scott's free. That means the public and the court has been fucked. Whereas the worst case scenario if someone falls victim to this law and he turns out to be innocent would be nothing compared to the example I have above. Plus I'm sure you can sue the state for that shit anyway.
I'm all for this law. It protects women.

Countless examples (sometimes for years) of the state being impune to wrongful imprisonment. there may be examples otherwise too I'm not sure.

 

[Kono dio da!]

Countless examples (sometimes for years) of the state being impune to wrongful imprisonment. there may be examples otherwise too I'm not sure.

How do you secure his presence in trial otherwise.

 

[Cooliox]

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.

well said

 

[bigmacbub]

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.

Nowhere does it state "no need for proof" nor indefinite detention......once again comprehension of what's stated in the Bill is key. It's fairly simple to understand.

 

[Mr.Maelstrom]

@Buff in here dropping knowledge.

Due process is for everyone.

It's awful that some ppl are so shitty that they'd make bail and then immediately kidnap and murder a person, and being that it hit our small but passionate community, its flat out saddening.
But this isn't the solution its intended to be.
I've been to jail, I've been through 2 years of monthly court fees in addition to random piss tests and a 10pm curfew, and I'm proud to say I passed it all w flying colors, not one single slip up. I know how hard it is, and yet I know for a fact it's more than doable.

Our legal system isn't perfect, but let's not pretend it should be ANY MORE broadly sweeping/vague than it already is. Vague and ambiguous isn't the ideal legal system.

God bless walt, and his family and all who are fighting for this girls death to produce something positive.

I just don't think this is it.

 

[SuperNerd]

Law ain't my thing, but this doesn't sound good.

 

[mkess101]

@Buff in here dropping knowledge.

Due process is for everyone.

It's awful that some ppl are so shitty that they'd make bail and then immediately kidnap and murder a person, and being that it hit our small but passionate community, its flat out saddening.
But this isn't the solution its intended to be.
I've been to jail, I've been through 2 years of monthly court fees in addition to random piss tests and a 10pm curfew, and I'm proud to say I passed it all w flying colors, not one single slip up. I know how hard it is, and yet I know for a fact it's more than doable.

Our legal system isn't perfect, but let's not pretend it should be ANY MORE broadly sweeping/vague than it already is. Vague and ambiguous isn't the ideal legal system.

God bless walt, and his family and all who are fighting for this girls death to produce something positive.

I just don't think this is it.

I'm confused. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the only thing this bill does is broaden the scope of what prosecutors can use as rationale for requesting someone be held without bail. And ONLY in Class A felonies (violent crimes, etc. where there's potentially a clear danger to the public). Maybe someone already mentioned this and I missed it (I haven't read every post) but essentially it used to be that the risk of flight and the person not showing for trial were the main consideration for bail. Now things like how serious the alleged crime is, criminal history of the accused, etc. can be considered more heavily in bail hearings.

Bail was and is still determined by the judge, working within whatever parameters the law entails.

People are actually pissed and think this is too much an erosion of civil liberties? I'm not seeing it. Bail has always been at the discretion of the courts. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not the standard applied to bail hearings, and it never was. Nor could it ever be. I mean, when they arrested Ted Bundy they put him in jail. At that point he was simply accused of crimes, not convicted. In the eyes of the law he was still innocent as he had not had his trial yet. But does anyone actually believe that holding him without bail was a violation of his rights as granted by the constitution?

What am I missing here?

 

[Mr.Maelstrom]

Law ain't my thing, but this doesn't sound good.

Exactly.
Some ppl seem gleefully content in assuming "violent thug criminals" are the only ones this type of bill would hurt, and I can somewhat understand that hostility truth be told.

The reality is, those ppl are rooting for a blindspot to become legislated. We forfeit so many of our individual freedoms in the name of "Even safer safety please, Do whatever you need to"

And that only drags us all down imho

 

[Mr.Maelstrom]

I'm confused. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the only thing this bill does is broaden the scope of what prosecutors can use as rationale for requesting someone be held without bail. And ONLY in Class A felonies (violent crimes, etc. where there's potentially a clear danger to the public). Maybe someone already mentioned this and I missed it (I haven't read every post) but essentially it used to be that the risk of flight and the person not showing for trial were the main consideration for bail. Now things like how serious the alleged crime is, criminal history of the accused, etc. can be considered more heavily in bail hearings.

Bail was and is still determined by the judge, working within whatever parameters the law entails.

People are actually pissed and think this is too much an erosion of civil liberties? I'm not seeing it. Bail has always been at the discretion of the courts. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not the standard applied to bail hearings, and it never was. Nor could it ever be. I mean, when they arrested Ted Bundy they put him in jail. At that point he was simply accused of crimes, not convicted. In the eyes of the law he was still innocent as he had not had his trial yet. But does anyone actually believe that holding him without bail was a violation of his rights as granted by the constitution?

What am I missing here?

You may be correct honestly. I'm just not a fan of grief/vendetta/emotion driven bills of law

 

[bigmacbub]

I'm confused. Unless I'm reading it wrong, the only thing this bill does is broaden the scope of what prosecutors can use as rationale for requesting someone be held without bail. And ONLY in Class A felonies (violent crimes, etc. where there's potentially a clear danger to the public). Maybe someone already mentioned this and I missed it (I haven't read every post) but essentially it used to be that the risk of flight and the person not showing for trial were the main consideration for bail. Now things like how serious the alleged crime is, criminal history of the accused, etc. can be considered more heavily in bail hearings.

Bail was and is still determined by the judge, working within whatever parameters the law entails.

People are actually pissed and think this is too much an erosion of civil liberties? I'm not seeing it. Bail has always been at the discretion of the courts. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not the standard applied to bail hearings, and it never was. Nor could it ever be. I mean, when they arrested Ted Bundy they put him in jail. At that point he was simply accused of crimes, not convicted. In the eyes of the law he was still innocent as he had not had his trial yet. But does anyone actually believe that holding him without bail was a violation of his rights as granted by the constitution?

What am I missing here?

You're not missing anything. Just there's a bunch of people in this thread that can't read apparently and/or comprehend