Is "bail" fair?

8kvscdpglqnyr4

Been thinking about this recently: if I get arrested for some serious crime, but I make bail until the trial ... bail is set at 50,000 EUR. I can afford the 50,000 EUR so I contine to live in the free world (with restrictions imposed by the court) until my trial. What if I can't afford bail? Does that mean I spend the time in prison until trial? Seems unfair. Sounds like the legal system favours the rich???

peanuthead

I could be wrong here of course, but my opinion of bail is that if you earn alot of money they will purposely set your bail higher than someone who couldn't afford, say 50grand. They know you have the means to pay it, and know that you will. So the system favours the poor more than it favours the rich I think.

Not that it should favour anyone!!!!

Bottle_of_Smoke

Its something that really annoys guards in this country.

Guy gets caught for something, knows he'll get a five year sentence. Gets bailed out, knows he can do same thing again as if he's caught the sentences will run concurrently

AARRRGH

Liliana Little Barbershop wrote: »

Is bail fair?

Yes, because he might be innocent. In most cases there is no reason to stay locked up until proven guilty.

Bail is normally set to an amount which he can afford. It is refunded after the trial.

johnnyskeleton

Liliana Little Barbershop wrote: »

Been thinking about this recently: if I get arrested for some serious crime, but I make bail until the trial ... bail is set at 50,000 EUR. I can afford the 50,000 EUR so I contine to live in the free world (with restrictions imposed by the court) until my trial. What if I can't afford bail? Does that mean I spend the time in prison until trial? Seems unfair. Sounds like the legal system favours the rich???

Other than the Joe O'Reillys (Rich man convicted of murder) or big time drug dealers, bail is never anywhere near €50k. Usually it in the €250-1000 area, with bail sometimes being as low as €10. The money is not always lodged, so even if you have a €50k bail bond, you might not have to physically deposit this in court (although you'd better show up when it comes to court).

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its something that really annoys guards in this country.

Guy gets caught for something, knows he'll get a five year sentence. Gets bailed out, knows he can do same thing again as if he's caught the sentences will run concurrently

If someone is convicted for an offence committed while on bail, any sentence passed must be consecutive to the sentence for the other offence. The judge has no discrection to make it concurrent.

As to whether bail is fair or not, it is based on two fundamental rights - the right to the presumption of innocence (i.e. you cannot be punished unless convicted) and the right to liberty (i.e. you cannot be detained save in due course of law). There are also a number of practical considerations - whether you are likely to turn up for court or not, whether you are likely to abscond, whether you are likely to interfere with justice or witnesses, the cost of imprisoning someone, the injustice of it being more difficult to prepare your defence (because you're locked up), the impact on a jury if they see you being brought into court in custody (will result in a mistrial), sometimes whether you might commit more serious offences while on bail etc.

Overall, it is fairer to grant bail than to refuse it in most circumstances. Granting/refusing bail has any number of consequences for a person, the worst being the guy who spent a year awaiting trial on a rape charge in which he was falsely accused (happend last year).

Crucifix

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

... the worst being the guy who spent a year awaiting trial on a rape charge in which he was falsely accused (happend last year).

Do people recieve damages/compensation if something like this happens?

johnnyskeleton

Crucifix wrote: »

Do people recieve damages/compensation if something like this happens?

Only if they were maliciously prosecuted & imprisoned or the judge acted outside of his jurisdiction (i.e. refused bail without a legal basis for doing so). I think there used to be an informal arrangement for compensation but I think this has dried up.

Bottle_of_Smoke

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If someone is convicted for an offence committed while on bail, any sentence passed must be consecutive to the sentence for the other offence. The judge has no discrection to make it concurrent.

Has that changed recently? Paul Williams refers to it in his book about John Gilligan, though it is about 8 years old

Phototoxin

Hardly seems fair to be in jail for a year and been 'slandered' as a rapist when you are innocent.

johnnyskeleton

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Has that changed recently? Paul Williams refers to it in his book about John Gilligan, though it is about 8 years old

Ah yes, that notable jurist Paul Williams. It's been around since 1985.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1984/en/act/pub/0022/sec0011.html#zza22y1984s11

Criminal Justice Act, 1984 wrote:

11.—(1) Any sentence of imprisonment passed on a person for an offence committed after the commencement of this section while he was on bail shall be consecutive on any sentence passed on him for a previous offence or, if he is sentenced in respect of two or more previous offences, on the sentence last due to expire, so however that, where two or more consecutive sentences as required by this section are passed by the District Court, the aggregate term of imprisonment in respect of those consecutive sentences shall not exceed two years.

It has been amended in the 2007 Act, but it's a minor change and doesn't change the effect of it. There is a lacuna in the legislation:

I commit crime A on the 1st Jan. I go to court on the 5th Jan and am released on bail to the 30th Jan. I commit crime B on the 7th Jan. I go to court on the 10th Jan, plead guilty to crime B and get a 1 month prison sentence. When I come back before the courts on the 30th Jan for crime A I plead guilty. I was not on bail at the time I committed crime A, it doesn't have to be consecutive. Equally, as I wasn't serving a sentence for a previous offence when sentenced for crime B, when I was sentenced for crime B there was nothing to make it consecutive to.

Maybe that's what Paul Williams was referring to. I doubt it though.

johnnyskeleton

Phototoxin wrote: »

Hardly seems fair to be in jail for a year and been 'slandered' as a rapist when you are innocent.

People in the hang em and damn em brigade forget these things, and it's only when they are falsely accused that they remember (hopefully it won't be too late for them).