not sure if this is the solution or not, but case that lead to this is just wrong
The filing came in the case of Maurice Walker of Calhoun, Georgia. He was kept in jail for six nights after police arrested him for the misdemeanor offense of being a pedestrian under the influence. He was told he could not get out of jail unless he paid the fixed bail amount of $160.
they never kept otis for 6 days unless he wanted to be there that longI didn't realize it was against the law to discriminate based on indigence.
Seems like 6 nights in jail would be way over the normal sentencing for Walker's crime; maybe there is a way to take this into account.
He was a pedestrian under the influence and his name is Walker; he had no choice.
yeah, but 6 days for public intoxication?I guess not doing the crime can't be brought up.
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk
Detox is hell!yeah, but 6 days for public intoxication?
Unfortunately some ARE more equal than others ! We do not know how many unpaid fines, arrests or other circumstances that may have affected his 6 days in jail. Do the crime, do the time, or pay the fine.One of the great achievements of English common law is realizing the ideal that all people are equal before the law. The rich aren't "more equal" than the poor. Except now, the poor, it turns out, are a little more equal than the rich.
This is yet another case in which the Justice Department (which should be known by its actual purpose, "The Department for Thwarting the Constitution Because its Bureaucrats Do Not Like What It Says and Utilizing the Legal System for the Partisan Advantage of One Party over Another") has decided that it does not like imposing bail on poor people. Despite the fact that bail has been around for almost 750 years. Bail is just offered for certain less serious crimes so the accused does not have to stay in jail until the trial.
Now, all of a sudden, Justice "discovers" that "Shazaam! Imposing bail on people who cannot afford to pay is unconstitutional," based not on what has traditionally been imposed in the past, and not based on some recently adopted amendment to the Constitution, but on the whims of Justice Department bureaucrats. This is not the way a nation of laws works. This is how banana republics work. The sooner the "Justice" Department gets thrown on the dustbin of history, the better.
And before 92 chimes in with a quip he thinks is funny, $160 for public intox is a little steep. Lead a campaign to change the law.
the feds are already leading that campaign.One of the great achievements of English common law is realizing the ideal that all people are equal before the law. The rich aren't "more equal" than the poor. Except now, the poor, it turns out, are a little more equal than the rich.
This is yet another case in which the Justice Department (which should be known by its actual purpose, "The Department for Thwarting the Constitution Because its Bureaucrats Do Not Like What It Says and Utilizing the Legal System for the Partisan Advantage of One Party over Another") has decided that it does not like imposing bail on poor people. Despite the fact that bail has been around for almost 750 years. Bail is just offered for certain less serious crimes so the accused does not have to stay in jail until the trial.
Now, all of a sudden, Justice "discovers" that "Shazaam! Imposing bail on people who cannot afford to pay is unconstitutional," based not on what has traditionally been imposed in the past, and not based on some recently adopted amendment to the Constitution, but on the whims of Justice Department bureaucrats. This is not the way a nation of laws works. This is how banana republics work. The sooner the "Justice" Department gets thrown on the dustbin of history, the better.
And before 92 chimes in with a quip he thinks is funny, $160 for public intox is a little steep. Lead a campaign to change the law.
serves them right for being poorGetting caught up in the criminal justice system sucks when you're poor. It's hell to get out of the cycle when you can't afford things.
Public intoxication is a Federal offense?the feds are already leading that campaign.
I don't get it. So this guy violated some Federal statute?exactly
correct, you don't get it.I don't get it. So this guy violated some Federal statute?
AMEN! Preach, brother!I think the problem is we screw over too many people for nonviolent crimes where the criminal justice system is just extracting their pound of flesh from the offending party to grease the wheels and keep the machine churning along.
I don't think anyone is going to shed a tear over a DUI not being able to make his bail. But people do get hot over this court fee, bail, and other expenses that are extracted from people for marijuana possession charges.
The problem here is a symptom of a larger problem with the structure of our criminal justice system which has become an unwieldy beast hungry to extract every last fine they can levy upon nonviolent crimes. We need to change the laws but there is too much interest in keeping the status quo. You start decriminalizing things and taking a more rehabilitation approach to drug use then all the sudden law enforcement agencies are getting their budgets cut and the lobbyist who benefit from a big DEA or FBI or whatever will pound the ground with fear mongering to scare the chumps and slack-jawed yokels.