SO WHY WERE THE BONDS WRITTEN? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

After reading the post, and subsequent replies, an ethical question seemed to emerge...

As long as it is a bailable offense, doesn't the subject have a constitutional right to bail?

And isn't a person innocent until proven guilty?

We all have to live with our decisions, and I understand the moral delima involved in bailing a person who is SUSPECTED of a predatory crime, but is it ok for us to play judge and jury before a trial?

I'm not saying I disagree with any of the replies, just an interesting topic to debate.

he may have a right to bail

and he may be inocent till proven guilty

but each bail agent must also hold them self to there moral standards and only do that which they belive is right[/quote]

1) The issue of bail being a constitutional right is not true. No where in the constitution is the issue of bail addressed with 1 exception.

The only reference in the constitution is to "excessive bail"....no where does it say that bail is a constitutional right in and of its own merits.

2) Nowhere, under any law that I am familiar with, does it require defendant's be released on bail through a retail outlet. A court may set a defendant's bail...but no law says that a bondsman has to come get them. If I don't want to get someone out...that's my choice.

Additionally, especially in small communities, say a local bondsperson does post a sexual offender's bond, and then he/she assaults a local child...

As with everything human, there is always politics...justice may indeed be blind...but she isn't immune to public opinion.

3) In this day and age, a person is guilty until proven innocent. Even when people have cleared themselves of alleged crimes, the stigma of thier arrest, trial, etc has been so devastating they had to physically move as far away as they possibly could to escape thier damaged reputations.

_________________
River City Associates
Decatur, Al. 35601

Depending on your interpretation, the fact that it was necessary to draft an amendment specifically to address bail seems to lend credence to the idea that bail is a given.



And so Congress passed a law in 1789 gauranteeing bail, and further setting parameters with which bail may be admitted.



So the legal right to bail is established by law, depending on the charges, and the discretion of the court. So now, it becomes a moral and ethical question.

Assuming the charges warrant bail, do we have a responsibility to ourselves and our community to question the finding of the court as to whether a person is a danger to the community?

And if so, what is the process for making that detemination? Is it through the gathering of facts, or a generalized notion?

1) Again..I REPEAT... Bail IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT..the fact that it is recognized by lawmaker's does not make it a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT...It is not in the constitution by itself. This was the original statement.

2) I have already posted my answers to your other questions. 1 obvious fact that you are overlooking is the presumption of honesty, integrity, and high moral standards of any court.

Court's are not infallible. They do make honest mistakes, but more often than not they are simply dishonest, unethical, immoral, and have hidden agenda's. When you have a court that is manipulated by an aspiring district attorney, then yes, it is our RIGHT AND OUR OBLIGATION to question the court's motivation for any action they take.

Some of our local judge's are elected. 1 of them in her first term was the equivalent to an old fashioned "hanging judge"....was way to extreme in her sentencing. When the next election rolled around she almost lost...it sent a clear message to her that she was way too tough and the community wasn't going to stand for it. She has since relaxed a bit and become easier to deal with.

_________________
River City Associates
Decatur, Al. 35601

Right to bail or not it comes down to morals for me. If I feel the person is a threat to the community at large I wont write it. Another office down the street will but my name wont be on the paperwork.

_________________
Mike
Norcal Bail Enforcement
San Jose Ca.
360 237 1721 efax
408 402 2710 work cell
DOI Bail Agent Lic 1844214
BSIS G1533544

Go hug a Tree

RWB,

You are correct. Bail is not a constitutional right, but a legal right guaranteed by law.

And I agree that the courts aren't fallable. As a matter of fact, I agree with your position completely. And DocMike's as well.

So what process is used to determine whether YOU think this person is a danger to society. It is on a case by case basis, based on the facts surrounding the case? Is it because of the type of crime in which he/she was accussed?

When I was a posting agent, which I currently am not..I am doing strictly reoveries now, most of the companies I posted for had standing policies already in place prior to my affiliation with them of not bonding sexual predators out at all...period.

2) The criteria most of them use around here, generally speaking, is the bond properly collateralized, is the c/s solid, and does the defendant have any past FTA's ? they can have a mile long criminal record for drugs, traffic, burglary, etc....but as long as thier record proves they make all of thier court appearance's then, yes, most of the companies here will get you out.

3) Bail bonding is a credit issue, more or less, when you get down to it. Is the defendant a good risk ? If a bonding company does thier job correctly, they never should be out a dime...all case related expenses should be reimbursed by the c/s. If you have a solid c/s, and proper security against the bond, then a bondsman will be successful.

However, if you write anything and everything, playing the percentages, you're going to take some heavy hits. I always strove to write solid bonds, examining everything. I was so strict and careful, that I was actually reprimanded for being "too restrictive" and passing up bonds because they didn't meet my criteria...if I got you out, you're going to court, you're going to pay your fees, and you're going to follow my program. If you didn't, back you went on grounds of breeching our contract.

_________________
River City Associates
Decatur, Al. 35601

Gut Instinct . . . if you get that sick sinking in the pit of your stomach feeling . . . don't write the bond. Most important . . . never write just for the $$$$$$ for sure as Sh** you are going to get burned.
The bonds that we write are for appearance . . . not for performance.
Those that have had bail set are entitled to bail . . .however, just because they call a bondsman does not mean that bondsman "has" to write the paper.

_________________


Do not consider anything for your interest which makes you break your word, quit your modesty, or inclines you to any practice which will not bear the light, or look the world in the face .... Marcus Antonius

I AM Some Folks "KARMA" and A MODERATOR @ FRN

I'm a bit surprised at some of the answers in this post. There are only three questions my agents are able to ask before deciding if they are going to post a bond. 1. Do they have the money? 2. Will they appear in court? 3. If they don't appear, will I be able to recover them? While I may excuse them for lapses if they have some sort of personal knowledge or relationship with the accused, any agent who insisted on making bonds because they had already predetermined the innocence of the client would quickly have to find themselves another job.

There is no greater maxim in this industry than that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That doesn't mean a kangaroo court, the court of public opinion, or even the biased musings of any of the actors in the criminal justice system. It means that the burden is on the state to prove the guilt of an accused person and that person has all the rights afforded a free man until such time as that burden of proof has been met. That includes in most cases the right to be free.

_________________
Joe Stiles
Bail Fast Bonding/
Black Aces Bail Recovery
Knoxville, TN
800-689-5031