Essay/Term paper: People accused of violent crimes should not be allowed to post bail

Essay, term paper, research paper:  History Essays

People Accused of Violent Crimes Should Not Be Allowed To Post Bail



People accused of violent crimes should not be allowed to post bail and
remain out of jail while their trial is pending. There are many reasons to why
I strongly agree with this statement. Many factors are unknown to the public
without conducting some sort of extensive research. Whether it is simply
reading in the paper about pending trials, or as complicated as researching
previous trials. Bail is decided by a judge, and their lives are devoted to
handling these types of decisions. There are three solid reasons to why I feel
it is necessary to deny bail to those accused of violent crimes. One is that
all conditions for release are decided by a judge who is fully aware of the
circumstances. Another is that these defendants, since being arrested, should
be considered a threat to public safety. My last, and final, reason is that my
rationale strongly agrees with denial of bail to the accused.
In Nebraska, as written in the Statutes of Nebraska, bail is granted
after a judge takes into account the nature and circumstances of the offense
charged. This judge looks at the defendants family ties, employment, financial
resources, character and mentality, having resided in the community, conviction
records, and record of court appearances or of flight to avoid prosecution or
failure to appear. A judge, when deciding if bail is to be granted, does not
just flip a coin to decide. He or she looks at all aspects of the situation.
It all rests in the judge's hands. When a judge looks at a person accused of a
violent crime, such as murder, a few things are liable to pop into perspective.
One would be to how violent and detrimental the accusations are. Any rational
thinking person would realize that if arrested, they are in suspicion.
Therefore, a state appointed judge is also going to realize that this person
must be a threat, especially if accused of a violent crime. It does not violate
the accused rights, because once under arrest, their rights are strictly defined
as what the judge's final decision is.
This leads me to my next point, that these accused people are a threat.
The purpose of bail, as defined by the Nebraska Statute, is to ensure that the
defendant will show at the trial. I researched a case where this was strongly
considered. Brian Mase is accused of shooting and killing John Boyer, after
Boyer refused to leave Mase's home. They were in a fight over a stolen watch.
Friends and relatives gave evidence that Mase had premeditated the murder by
making numerous phone calls to Boyer and various threats outside of Mase's home.
The judge denied bail for reasons that I completely agree with. Since the
prosecution had evidence that Mase planned to kill Boyer if he ever came to his
home, the judge felt there was a risk involved with Mase staying in the county
if granted bail. They suspected that Mase might flee after he learns what type
of case the prosecution has against him. The defendant's attorney argued that
Mase had nowhere to run, and many relatives. The judges decision in this case
did not follow all of the rules show above. However, the one factor of threat
overshadowed all of the rest. Even though Mase had strong family ties and
nowhere to go to, even the slightest suspicion that he might flee was enough. I
agree with the decision to deny bail. I cannot think of anyone who would want
a man accused of killing someone over a watch being able to roam free on bail
while their trial is in progress. This, in my own opinion, is a perfect example
of how judges look at the circumstances of the case.
My final argument to why bail should be denied is solely based on my own
personal analysis. Bail, in my opinion, is a privilege. If I had my own way,
bail would only be used in misdemeanor offenses. If a person is accused of a
violent crime there is evidently some inclination for the arrest. These accused
people are not just randomly drawn out of a hat, they have had warrants out for
their arrest. As many know, warrants have to be approved by a judge, the same
judge who will decide if they are able to post bail. There was enough evidence,
circumstantial or solid, for the arrest to be made for these violent crimes, and
so there is enough evidence to deny bail to these accused individuals. It is
inhumane for someone accused of a violent crime to be able to roam around free
when their trial is pending. Once they are arrested, they should lose their bid
for freedom until the verdict is in.