All Defendants Should Be Guaranteed a Reasonable Bail

1)Innocent until found guilty. My opponent points to a supreme court ruling, Coffin v U.S. [1], to argue that we have the presumption of innocence. Since my opponent has appealed to the supreme court as a legitimate authoritative figure I took on this debate because I was well aware of the Supreme Court's decision. I said that they got it wrong--see my very first post. The government does has the right to pursue other admittedly compelling interest, such potential danger to society and flight risks, however they cannot do so if it violates the 8th amendment, which protects a person against excessive bail. The Con does not challenge Coffin v U.S so he must accept the decision as binding. "We reject the proposition that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the government from pursuing other admittedly compelling interests through regulation of pretrial release." This is extremely dangerous because constitutional rights should not be abridged. Should this standard apply to all constitutional rights? Can we suspend the 14th amendment if there were compelling reasons? How about voting rights for woman? How about a right to a jury trial? Prior to this decision, the court only limited free speech, wherein the speech itself was dangerous--used to incite a riot or speech designed to cause mayhem such as yelling fire in a crowed movie theater. Moreover, I have proved that the court could rule that denying bail completely was unconstitutional particularly since there are other ways to address the compelling interests that they speak of--such as 24 hour surveillance or home confinement. We find that since cash is not the only form of bail, "no bail" cannot possibly be excessive without the entire bail process being excessive and so that argument fails. I don't follow the logic. Here is the only practical change that will occur. The Courts would be required to attach a numerical value to the bail if they are seeking to detain the prisoner until trial. We can debate what amount would be excessive or not at another time. For now, the standard would be some number less than 500 trillion dollars or any amount that exceeds the available money in the United States. This may or may not apply to suspended bail, which will be discussed later. I would urge the Con to explain his and the Supreme Court's logical reasoning instead of simply repeating the non sense they wrote in the majorities opinion. I await for a response on this question. If my opponent chooses to accept the supreme court as a legitimate authority, then he must accept their ruling on bail. If he back tracks and rejects their authority, then he must forfeit the Presumption of Innocence. If he tries to maintain PoI while rejecting the court's ruling on bail, he has then committed a special pleading fallacy. I will not back track. However, this does not mean that I accept every decision the Supreme Court decides, particularly the one you cite. 2)8th Amendment My point is that you cannot make the analogy unless all conditions found within the analogies are present. I assert there is a constitutional requirement that there be a non excessive condition for release if the government wishes to detain a person awaiting trial. In your analogy there is no obligation that the company or person to sale the item at all. I base my reasoning primarily on the fact that a 500 trillion dollar cash bail is excessive and denying bail is more excessive because the condition is worse and punishment greater. The Con simply continues to argue that there is no right for a person to be entitled to a cash bail. Even if it is constitutional, the Con never explains why its reasonable to deny a person, assumed to be innocent a right to receive a condition for release. Here is my argument in a nut shell excessive bail = 500 trillion dollars exceeds all money in the U.S) [very harsh penalty] no bail = no monetary value [a more harsh penalty] The Con does not follow my logic. I ask the voter which is the worse penalty 500 trillion dollar bail requirement or being denied bail completely. 3)Primary focus on cash My opponent accepts that alternative methods, other than cash can be applied. This causes his entire argument to fail, because there is not a conversion from one currency into another. Example, if the judge were to impose a bail of "7 days" The person accused in his example is assumed to be innocent. Why is the Con still assuming that the defendant is guilty of the crime? I have argued throughout this debate that the courts should tie any condition with regard to public safety to the conditions of the bail. The Con attempts to win this debate with a red herring. In reality a person is either granted immediate release upon a payment of a cash requirement or they are denied bail completely--which means they must remain in jail until their trial date which was the purpose of this debate. The Con attempts to fabricate a scenario wherein it might be reasonable to deny a person awaiting trial for x amount of days. First, I never agreed that the court could make a bail condition based upon a certain amount days the accused must remain in jail. I only agreed that the person could be release on bail contingent upon a set number days consistent with the trial date. Second, the Con cannot cite one single example wherein a person was denied any condition for release for an hour, seven days or any set number of days. This is laughable and never done. Thirdly, I am not sure that one could call this new phenomenon denying bail since the accused will be granted bail at sometime in the future. This should be termed suspended bail as I mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, my analogy still holds true. If a 500 trillion dollar bail is excessive and unreasonable, then no bail is excessive and unreasonable. No bail is also a greater punishment then a suspended bail for similar reasons. Now, let's say that bail is twisted around the other way, since my opponent accepts "time" as a legitimate condition for bail. I only accept time as a condition for release as it relates to a trial date. In other words, the court can grant release based on a certain number of days equal to the trial date. 4)"Very strict conditions for release" My opponent argues that courts can "impose very strict conditions for his or her release" and lists several of them. Such as requiring them to stay home, and placing police around their home 24/7. No, the 8th amendment only requires that the government to give the accused a non excessive condition(s) for their release while awaiting trial. I argue that a suspended bail might be unreasonable even if it only briefly denies a person a non excessive condition. However, its irrelevant here. The person release and confined to their home has not been denied bail or had has bail suspended. They might argue that the bail was excessive, but I would rule against them.. The Pro is suggesting that a person is entitled to unabated freedom upon releases, I won't go that far. In Summary We find that we cannot accept presumption of innocence without also accepting that no bail is not excessive bail (thanks to the supreme court). No, I due accept the presumption of innocence, but I disagree with the court decision the Con presents for various reasons already established. We find that since cash is not the only form of bail, "no bail" cannot possibly be excessive without the entire bail process being excessive and so that argument fails. A system that is fundamental unfair should be replaced. Moreover, I believe that the bail system can function normally even if the court finds no bail to be unconstitutional. Nor would it jeopardize public safety.