General Retail News

[danbrotherston]

Oh come on, this is basic civics. Yes, someone proven guilty of the crime of multiple arson of course deserves to be locked up, and will be. That is different from receiving bail. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental tenant of our legal system. The only reason to deny bail is if the person can be demonstrated to be an active risk to the safety of the community, or that they are a flight risk, even with bail conditions. But bail has nothing to do with whether a guilty person should be punished.

I’m not talking about punishment. I’m talking about someone who is obviously a danger to the community being kept in a safe and secure location, as much for their own protection as that of everyone else.

This is not a situation in which there is any real doubt as to who the perpetrator is, either; the legal guilt (and therefore liability for penalty) hasn’t been determined, but their defense isn’t going to be “you got the wrong guy”.

Of course, I also have the weird belief that trials should happen fairly promptly after the event, thus shortening the period of pre-trial detention.

Now I suppose that it actually is possible that it has been established that the chance of further offenses by this person in the immediate future is very low, in which case I withdraw my statement: bail is fine in this hypothetical. But can we at least agree that if they set another fire they should be locked up until after the trial?

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.

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.

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.