If you want to leave it to the judge, seems like you would vote yes.
How so? Bail schedules are evidently advisory and the judge currently has discretion. How does Yes increase his discretion?
How so? Bail schedules are evidently advisory and the judge currently has discretion. How does Yes increase his discretion?
this is all over. some states give complete discretion to judges. some turn bail schedules over to local rules. counties. whatever. personally with the lunacy we have seen from democrats i would in a perfect world remove discretion from the judge and have strict bail schedules. surety. 10%. tether it to the level of charge not means of the accused
If you want to leave it to the judge, seems like you would vote yes.
How so? Bail schedules are evidently advisory and the judge currently has discretion. How does Yes increase his discretion?
I already said above. Currently bail is mandatory under the state constitution, so a judge cannot deny bail in Indiana. I don't know what discretion they have, the article I posted says that in Marion county a Level 1 felony is $50k bail.... Which means what... Like $5k using a bondsman? Not really sure
@twenty 10 percent or surety are discretionary in places I’m familiar. Up to the judge. I suspect Indiana would be the same
Ok I guess I misinterpreted “Bail schedules are advisory.”Currently bail is mandatory under the state constitution, so a judge cannot deny bail in Indiana.
so a judge cannot deny bail in Indiana. I don't know what discretion they have
Presumably advisory means the judge can increase the bail amount. If that isn’t limited, the judge could make it prohibitive.
”judges already have the discretion to order a defendant to wear an ankle monitor or not possess a firearm while on pre-trial release, or set bail high enough to make sure defendants appear for their court hearings.”
@hurryinghoosiers this is the problem with dems. They’re just all feels and zero knowledge. AOC. And morons like you. Why are you so stupid? “Require more taxes to replace money from bail.” Good lord this is why we hate you Dems. You want to fck with the country while not knowing ANYTHING about how things work. Bail is a security deposit to ensure the defendant shows for court. At the end of the case the defendant gets it back or assigns it to the lawyer in lieu of attnys fees. The court system doesn’t keep it. Jesus man. There is nothing dumber than a modern Dem. Nothing.
Uh huh sure. Whatever you say mcbozo
How so? Bail schedules are evidently advisory and the judge currently has discretion. How does Yes increase his discretion?
this is all over. some states give complete discretion to judges. some turn bail schedules over to local rules. counties. whatever. personally with the lunacy we have seen from democrats i would in a perfect world remove discretion from the judge and have strict bail schedules. surety. 10%. tether it to the level of charge not means of the accused
The only lunacy is from morons like you
@hurryinghoosiers from the guy who thinks taxes will replace bail 🤣🤣. How can you know so little and be so certain.
Presumably advisory means the judge can increase the bail amount. If that isn’t limited, the judge could make it prohibitive.Ok I guess I misinterpreted “Bail schedules are advisory.”Currently bail is mandatory under the state constitution, so a judge cannot deny bail in Indiana.
so a judge cannot deny bail in Indiana. I don't know what discretion they have
”judges already have the discretion to order a defendant to wear an ankle monitor or not possess a firearm while on pre-trial release, or set bail high enough to make sure defendants appear for their court hearings.”
This isn't really about making higher bail amounts. It's whether you think the judge should be able to deny bail.
Going back and doing more Facking homework, just to be able to understand a GD Ballot question..... Yes I am pissed how cryptic this is, especially for my other, even more easily duped fellow Americans. This shit makes me feel/proves like we are being used as useful idiots.
a person charged with murder or treason is not entitled to be released on bail if the proof is evident or the presumption strong
So after re-reading this, it says something that I didn't pick up on before. "not entitled..." "if the proof is evident or the PRESUMPTION strong"... Have an issue with "presumption" and "strong". There is nothing stopping an activist judge, or one on a bad mood, or one that didn't like your grand dad or one that was of an opposing political lean, from doing what ever the fuck they want.
This ballot question seems to want to apply the same KING POWER to jay walking, for example (although maybe a bit hyperbolic). I think I've gotta vote no, HELL NO.
As far as the poster that questioned if I had pasted the wording correctly. I copy and pasted directly from my ballot that I looked up on the IN.GOV (or what ever) voter web site.
Morally Flexible. Kinda.
My point about higher bail amounts was that the judge has that discretion.This isn't really about making higher bail amounts. It's whether you think the judge should be able to deny bail.
As for this constitutional amendment (or whatever it’s called), the way it’s worded it’s more about the prosecution being able to make a case for no bail. The judge’s role is adjudicating the prosecution’s case.
It seems concerning to be leaving undefined who makes the decision that "the proof is evident or the presumption strong".
The person best positioned to decide that would, I think, be the judge. So any pre-judgement of likely guilt by someone else seems ill-advised and contrary to our system of justice.