(11-02-2020, 10:36 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: How are they "obviously a danger to the community". They have neither been proven guilty of the crime you believe them to have committed, nor is it clear they would do it again.
A person who has set multiple fires, essentially randomly, is obviously a danger to the community.
Quote:This "no real doubt" is irrelevant, we all think the police probably have the right person, and they probably do. But legally they are innocent until that guilty verdict is achieved. It is very important that these protections exist, it is the basis of how we have freedoms in this country. If the police got to decide who gets locked up, that's a very dangerous situation...it's exactly what we see happening in the US, and it's fucking terrifying.
Yes, I’m not quite sure how this should be handled. I guess the answer is the bail hearing, where the person is brought before a judge very soon after arrest.
And actually, my hope is that the judge did make a good evaluation of the situation and that it really is true that the person is not an imminent threat. If that is true, then as I said I withdraw my assertion that this brings the administration of justice into disrepute. However, my impression is that there is a class of criminals who know that they won’t spend any significant amount of time away from their usual life even if they commit many crimes.
So ultimately I’m not sure in this case, although your points are all well taken in general.
Quote:I would want those protections if I was accused of a crime, therefore, I must fight for those protections for everyone.
As for shortening trial dates...absolutely. Having someone in detention tends to shorten the dates, because the cost of being wrong (i.e., charging an innocent person) is higher (i.e., you'd detained someone innocent for longer).
If the person was accused of setting another fire, I believe bail would be reevaluated.
Well, it’s not just about the accusation. Suppose that they did set another fire, and bystanders tackled the person and held them on the floor until the police arrived, while the entire interaction was captured on high-quality surveillance footage. It’s absurd to then say “the person accused”; legally they might only be “accused” of the crime of arson, but as a matter of fact they are the person who set the fire, and it would be absurd at that point to let them out of custody.
Even the word “accused” has a legal definition, doesn’t it? I mean, are they officially “accused” if they haven’t been charged yet? Or is the arrest (“for …”) enough to call them “accused”?
On a related note, I’ve always found it weird when the news reports that a convenience store was held up by somebody with a gun, and then refers to “suspects” caught on video, not, say, leaving the store, but clearly holding up a gun and pointing it at the clerk. In that situation, the people on the video are not suspects but rather perpetrators. The only question is perpetrators of what legal crime, exactly; and is the suspect Joe Smith that the police picked up 2 hours later actually one of the people caught on surveillance pointing the gun.