🚀 go-pugleaf

mrg@acpub.duke.edu (Michael R. Gustafson II) wrote:

>House arrest is more restrictive than not having house arrest given >equal bail.

>Had he been Black I think there would probably be a greater 
>chance of his either getting a much larger bond or a no-bond
>hold.  Using a Greene-esque line of reasoning, given the 
>general economic state African-Americans face here, the bail 
>as set may have been sufficiently high...
>
>Which, I suppose, begs the question - should the affluence of the 
>accused or his/her family be taken into account when setting 
>bail?  If I am accused of some crime and am able in a pinch to 
>get a $30,000 bond but another person who is like me in most 
>regards except affluence is able to post $100,000 should my bond be 
>set lower?

Bringing this discussion back into focus, I removed some tangential issues I put in (sorry, I do that sometimes)...

Michael has excellent points and is correct on all of them...

Maybe there needs to be codified standards that are unilaterally applied such that a family's wealth or standing in a community is n=
ot applied to a determination as to whether bail should be granted or in what amount or bail should be set at.

It APPEARS to me the relatively low ($175,000 = either putting one's house up or saying bye-bye to about $26,000 when given to a bai=
lbondman) bail AND the house arrest would not have been afforded a black man who was charged with armed kidnapping/rape/robbery. It =
also APPEARS that this solution regardless of race, etc. is not the solution that is best for the community. That's my point.


Dave