- Joined
- Jan 11, 2010
- Messages
- 31,419
- Reaction score
- 44,425
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.