20000 bail is 2000 cash out of pocket. 10% is typical for a bail bond.
That's why they set it so high. I agree with you about publicizing ones name
before they are proven guilty. In any case, "innocent until proven guilty"
is just a saying, it has no basis in fact. If it were true, why is it that,
if a jury can't decide if you are guilty or not (hung jury), they can try
you again? If "innocent until proven guilty", their inability to prove your
guilt should default to a not guilty verdict, not the legal equivalent of a
"do over".

"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
...
The release of pictures and due process don't necessarily either go
together
nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive. Pictures of crime scenes are
often shown in the press. Popular opinion rarely enters into jury
deliberations to any significant degree. I will, however, agree with you
on
one point... if a person is supposedly innocent until proven guilty, as
one
is supposed to be in our judicial system, then their name should not be
released to the press unless and until they are found guilty in a court of
law. Many innocent people's reputations have been ruined because of a
high
profile criminal case (at least in their local area). Also, there is a
section in the Constitution prohibiting excessive bail... but excessive
bail
seems more the rule than the exception anymore. I have read cases where a
burglar has to post $20,000 bail.. if they had that kind of money in their
wallet (or even their bank account) they most likely wouldn't be
burglars...

CW wrote:

20000 bail is 2000 cash out of pocket. 10% is typical for a bail bond.
That's why they set it so high. I agree with you about publicizing ones name
before they are proven guilty. In any case, "innocent until proven guilty"
is just a saying, it has no basis in fact.

(snipped)

I believe the French and Mexicans among others, use a version of
Napoleanic Law, where it's assumed the cops had a good reason to arrest
you and therefore it's up to you to prove your innocence.

Same as Guantanamo, except not quite as impossible. **COURTS** are
available under Napoleanic law.

I note with interest that some puppet of the US had set up a PRIVATE
jail/torture centre in Afghanistan. He claims to have been in
communication with Rumsfeld on a daily basis.

May God save us from this version of 'Democracy'.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2/ixworld.html

For the 'bent' URL crowd:

http://tinyurl.com/4zphx



mike

Idiot.
"m II" wrote in message
news:x%ELc.46612$2i3.38839@clgrps12...
(snipped)

I believe the French and Mexicans among others, use a version of
Napoleanic Law, where it's assumed the cops had a good reason to arrest
you and therefore it's up to you to prove your innocence.

Same as Guantanamo, except not quite as impossible. **COURTS** are
available under Napoleanic law.

I note with interest that some puppet of the US had set up a PRIVATE
jail/torture centre in Afghanistan. He claims to have been in
communication with Rumsfeld on a daily basis.

May God save us from this version of 'Democracy'.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2/ixworld.html

For the 'bent' URL crowd:

http://tinyurl.com/4zphx



mike

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Idiot.

Which one you refering to?

M II.

"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
...

"CW" no adddress@spam free.com wrote in message
...
Idiot.

Which one you refering to?