Openside wrote:
That is semantics, using the term bailable offence was to all intents and purposes shorthand for the circumstances of their crime are not something that I would consider suitable for bail. I wasn't suggesting there are bailable or non bailable offences as each are considered on their merits. I understand you are talking pure law but I think people generally have an expectation that criminals who are going to do serious time if convicted are generally not let loose on bail. I could easily see this couple being at serious risk of harm to themselves can't you??
As for you rampaging comment I am somewhat taken aback, I hardly think I have rampaged on this thread in fact I would imagine a straw poll would expect kidnapping for 30 years to be the sort of offence that bail would be denied for, for all the reasons you mentioned - risk to the public, flight risk and potential harm to themselves. In fact if you go back you will see that I am wondering what did actually occur particularly as the women appeared to have been freed almost a month ago and the couple only just arrested and released.
Oh Lord, here you go again. You say you weren't suggesting that there are bailable or non bailable offences, then you say that most would expect kidnapping for 30 years to be the sort of offence that bail would be denied for.
Of course I'm talking "pure law". Bail is a legal concept, how else is it to be discussed?
I'd imagine that the person who was best placed to determine whether they are a risk to the public, a flight risk or a danger to themselves was the magistrate who heard the evidence, not people chewing the cud on an internet forum.
I think people generally have an expectation that criminals who are going to do serious time if convicted are generally not let loose on bail.
Often they're not, but only because one of the factors on which bail can be denied is present. None of which is the severity of the crime. Otherwise we'd have a situation in which simply being accused of a serious crime was tantamount to being found guilty of it. Do you really want to live in that sort of a society?
An example: some nutty burd in the office develops a crush on you and when you say you're not interested she goes to the police and falsely claims you raped her. You have a clean criminal record, a happy and stable family and an exemplary record of public service. Should you be sent to prison on remand for 6 months "because of the severity of the crime" whilst statements are taken, the prosecution gets its shit together, and finally realises that there are holes in her story a mile wide? How would you feel when you were released from prison without even a "sorry" to find that your wife and kids have left you, your business has disintegrated and your friends now shun you, because your lengthy absence means that everyone assumes there's no smoke without fire?
And now ask yourself why these people shouldn't get the benefit of the same assumption of innocence until guilt is proven that you'd want for yourself, just because you've read about it in the paper and have already made your own assumptions based on fudge all actual evidence?
