How is bail granted?

dbnavan

Can someone please explain to me how someone charged with murder in this country is allowed to walk to and from court during the trial, I am sure everyone knows who I am talking about, in any other country the accused would be remanded during a trial.

Rhonda9000

dbnavan wrote:

someone charged with murder

.

Our man in Havana

The fact is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and is therefore within reason entitled to bail.

dbnavan

Rhonda9000 wrote:

.

Fail to see your point?

dbnavan

Bond-007 wrote:

The fact is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and is therefore within reason entitled to bail.

Thats my question within what reason, wouldnt happen in say america. We are not talking of a parking fine here...

seamus

dbnavan wrote:

Thats my question within what reason, wouldnt happen in say america. We are not talking of a parking fine here...

It does happen in America. It happens anywhere that they grant bail. I don't know what makes you think that this is unique to Ireland.

In certain circumstances, a judge may refuse bail for an accused on the grounds that the accused would pose a significant threat to public safety, or would attempt to interfere with witnesses and evidence. But this is rare enough, because the base rule applies - a person is innocent until proven guilty, therefore you can't just jail them for nothing.

Why shouldn't an innocent man be allowed to walk freely to and from his trial?

dbnavan

Ok it does happen in America, although rarely as the somes of money requested can stretch to millions(my wife is American - it was her that raised the queston with me) following some research I found that the High Court must recieve an application for bail, and that they decide what assurities must be put up, if any, to assure bail.

More helpful explaination dont you think shay!

seamus

Not really, it does happen in America, and in a big way. Rarely does the bail stretch to millions, and in those cases its usually where there's a serious risk of the defendent skipping bail.

There is an entire industry built up around providing people with loans in order to bail themselves out, and professional bounty hunters who track down those who have skipped bail.

Besides, I don't think pointing at the American justice system as an example of best practice will give much strength to your argument

You still didn't answer my question - Why shouldn't an innocent man be allowed to walk freely to and from his trial?

Edit: There's a simple and helpful page about bail procedures in Ireland here:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/arrests/bail_and_surety?tab=

Rhonda9000

dbnavan wrote:

Fail to see your point?

My point was in the alteration I made to your original comment:

someone charged with murder

In the mean time, other posters made this clearer - a person charged with a crime is not a convicted person. Innocence is presumed until guilt is proven and then the person gets locked away / fined / hung drawn and quartered [some of you wish] ..

Citizens enjoy concocting their own master infallible verdicts based on snippets in the papers over coffee with friends and the "It's a disgrace!" uproar about e.g. bail inevitably surfaces because in their heads of course they know so much more than the judge and jury.

Victor

If nobody accused of murder could get bail, it would be easy to organise a coup by charging specific people with murder.

Rhonda9000

Victor wrote:

If nobody accused of murder could get bail, it would be easy to organise a coup by charging specific people with murder.

Everyone in the nation would be going to Templemore

"Look at that fella walking around - lets charge him so he'll be imprisoned until found not guilty"

johnnyskeleton

Bail conditions can often include surrendering your passport or signing on daily in the local garda station. So if the person does try to skip out it would be very difficult.

If someone is brought into court in chains, then juries might be persuaded by this that the person should be convicted. Or they might think that if he has done some time, then doing a bit more wont hurt him.

dbnavan

seamus wrote:

You still didn't answer my question - Why shouldn't an innocent man be allowed to walk freely to and from his trial?

I see your point however shouldnt this come down to weather or not the person is charged or not, you cant just charge someone without cause.

Look at louise woodward and OJ, they were detained during their trials.

johnnyskeleton

dbnavan wrote:

I see your point however shouldnt this come down to weather or not the person is charged or not, you cant just charge someone without cause.

Look at louise woodward and OJ, they were detained during their trials.

And when found not guilty, they had served the equivalent of a prison sentence undeservedly.

dbnavan

johnnyskeleton wrote:

And when found not guilty, they had served the equivalent of a prison sentence undeservedly.

Point taken, weather the judgement was right is for another debate, case closed.