by Bob Walsh
The formerly great state of California may (or may not) suddenly become significantly less safe next week thanks to Xavier Becerra, the liberal democrap Attorney General.
On January 25 the First District Court of Appeal in the People's Republic of San Francisco issued a ruling that said that it is inherently unfair to hold poor people in the slammer while people who are not so poor can be granted bail. Becerra announced on Wednesday that he will not appeal this decision.
There is also a federal action pending on the issue of cash bail in general.
The ruling does not prohibit the requirement of bail, but it must be bail a person an afford. So, presumably if an accused armed robber and murderer is indigent he could be granted ROR as he could afford zero bail.
The basic case considered was that of Jeffrey Humphrey. He entered the apartment of a 79-year old man, threatened him, and stole $5 cash and a bottle of cologne. Humphrey was a 63-year old long time drug addict who had a significant criminal history and was at the time enrolled in a rehabilitation program. I guess it didn't take. Humphrey was originally held against a $600,000 bail that was later reduced to $350,000. He could not afford either bail amount or to pay for a bond.
It is yet to be determined what effect judge's decisions and jail space will have on public safety. My guess is the effect will be negative, but maybe I am just a negative kind of guy. I wonder how Humphrey's victim feels about it?
EDITOR'S NOTE: I am sure that if you look more closely, you will see that this does not apply if the accused is an armed robber or murderer.
3 comments:
If a crook is arrested for a non-violent crime will a previous violent crime conviction have any bearing on the bond amount?
As far as I know they deal only with the instant offense, not prior offenses.
And Howie is a party pooper.
And I have lots of farts to go with that poop!
Post a Comment