General Retail News

[danbrotherston]

Here’s an example where I feel comfortable saying that the perpetrator should definitely be locked up pending trial:

https://driving.ca/auto-news/news/man-wi...rivingflex 

It’s obvious that violating a lifetime driving ban multiple times should result in exponentially increasing custodial sentencues; it should not be possible within a normal human lifespan to be given 8 lifetime bans from driving.

The purpose of bail is to keep innocent people out of prison. But in this case, there are only 2 facts to be established: (1) the person the police arrested was driving and (2) they had a lifetime driving ban. If both of these are true the person should be doing time; otherwise a lifetime driving ban is meaningless, which brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Both of these should be able to be established with enough certainty to justify holding the person for a few weeks until the full trial can be held.

Side note: nobody should even have multiple lifetime driving bans at the same time. There should only be one, with each violation punished by an exponentially increasing prison sentence; or, since it is clearly insane to keep driving when the penalty for the next offence is, say, 10 or 20 years, maybe the offender should be held in a mental facility instead. I don’t actually believe in “punishment” as such, but rather in removing from the general population people who are dangerous (e.g. murderers) or whose actions would cause our society to stop functioning (e.g. shoplifters).

No, the purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant pitches up for trial.  Added bonus, they aren't cluttering up the jails at public expense.

The purpose of the restrictions placed on a defandant is to ensure they comply with the judicial process (i.e., show up for court).

The purpose of releasing a defendant instead of just holding them in prison is to ensure we are not locking up innocent people.

The word bail, as far as I can tell, applies to both of these things.