All defendants should be guaranteed a reasonable bail

The 8th amendment only protects against people receiving EXCESSIVE bail, such as your alleged 1 trillion dollar amount. The 8th amendment in no way states that the right to bail is a constitutional right for every man and woman, the 8th amendment only protects against the courts keeping a person in prison by imposing an outrageous amount of money for bail..... The con ignores and fail to respond to my central argument. If you agree that the government cannot impose a trillion dollar bail then how can you assert that they can however impose a fine greater than a trillion dollars. One can draw the conclusion from the plain language. If the amendment purpose was to protect individuals from being detained with excessive bails why would they allow them to be detained with no bail. The Pro doesn't seem to be interested in entertaining this thought. Innocent until proved guilty is not how courts operate. Lawyers in any case are out to either defend or prove the criminals guilt/innocence and they will go to any length to try to win. It is then up to the jury to decide if they feel that the accused person is innocent or guilty. Until the verdict is given though then the accused is considered "innocent until proved guilty" but that is not how the courts operate. Is the Con suggesting that the courts operate under the assumption that the accused is guilty until proved otherwise? I certainly do not believe this to be the case. If the Pro believes this to be acceptable then one can clearly understand why he sees nothing wrong with the government denying bail. But even if the courts do take the purview, they still cannot deny a reasonable bail to a United States citizens pursuant to the 8th amendment. Having police keep tabs on suspected criminals would be better is what the Pro is saying. Look in any major city in the US anywhere, police forces are under funded, understaffed, and most likely would bu under-equipped to follow around each and every criminal who has had charges filed against him while at the same time continue to protect the public from other criminals as well.... People have to pay for freedom. If the police are under funded than the government needs to raise taxes or make cuts in other areas. The government shouldn't be permitted to hold a person presumed to be innocent without bail for political or financial expedience. Under the 8th amendment we have right to a reasonable bail. The government cannot deny me a bail because they perceive me to be dangerous and they don't want to spend the money to curb those fears. The England relation does make sense but again this only warrants the rights of people AGAINST EXCESSIVE Bail, not the right to receive bail.... The England relation is important because its give historical context as to how and why the 8th amendment came to be. As I have noted, people were imprisoned with excessive bails for invalid reasons. If the lawyer of the accused has any belief that the judge has given their client a large amount of bail that he sees as unreasonable he has the right to consult other judges and state his case, but many times the bail is not considered excessive by lawyers from both parties, the judge, and the juries Of course, one can appeal an amount that they deem excessive. However, there is no appeal once the accused has been denied bail. The Supreme Court interprets the 8th amendment to disallow the trillion dollars bail as excessive, however permit a greater penalty of no bail as acceptable. The Con does not attempt to explain the logic. It makes perfect sense that courts cannot give a high amount of bail but can deny bail because there is no justification for giving a person an ungodly high bail, but it can be justified that the courts can deny bail, see the 6 reasons in my first argument... This statement baffles me. The Pro should follow this logic. The purpose of setting high bail serves a dual purpose. It may prevent the accused from going free until trial and/or make it unlikely that the accused won't show up for the hearing. The purpose of denying bail is also to prevent the accused from going free before trial and to make sure the accused stands trials. I can only fathom that the Pro assumes that in cases of murder that bail can be denied and in all other cases it should not be excessive. The problem with this logic is that the 8th amendment makes no such distinction between murder and other less serious crimes. Secondly, the accused is assumed to be innocent of the murder and therefore it does not make sense to hold them without bail. As for the six reasons, I counter that the 8th amendment trumps all sixth of them. The governments do not deny bail to the accused the judges in the courts do!! its their decision on whether or not bail should be offered or denied not the supreme courts, not the federal or state governments either!!! Whoa! Calm down there. The Pro seems to get excited or agitated here. Government to me encompasses anyone employed by the government and works within legal framework of our government. The judge and courts are agents of the government. They are bound to adhere to all legislative statues and constitutional mandates. Thus, the judge must consider whether or not his or her actions are constitutional. If the Supreme Court upholds what a judge does and the legislative branch fails to act then the government has in effect upheld the action. Is the Con arguing that the judge and courts work outside governmental control? The Pro is very confused on this whole matter because they think that it is the government or the supreme court that denies people bail when it is judges in the courts who decide who gets bail. Also the Pro has misread the 8th amendment because the 8th amendment clearly states that, I assure the Con that I am not confused. I am well versed in the field of law. The judge is an agent of the government, the court is an agent of the government, Appellant Court is an agent of the government and so is the Supreme Court. Is the Con suggesting that these entities work outside the confines of the government? Many people refer to the government when dealing with governmental agents. Not sure why that matter though. The Con is correct, that is the exact wording of the 8th amendment. Nonetheless the seem arguments remain. None of which have been addressed by the Con. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This protects criminals from excessive bail, and protects them from receiving a cruel or unusual punishment if found guilty. The 8th amendment in no way authorizes bail as a legal right to each and every US citizen.... The Con makes this claim without addressing my central argument which is that its makes no sense to protect persons accused of crimes, not necessarily criminals, from excessive bails, yet permit the same people to be denied bail altogether even though they are assumed to be innocent. Lastly the Pro has not offered an argument to why denying bail for protection of the public would not be justified.... Wow, let me try this again. If a person has a constitutional right to be granted a reasonable bail, the government or its agents cannot abridging that right. If public safety is at issue, the people must pay for the additional protection to monitor those dangerous offenders. It might be in the public best interested to simply kill all criminals. Should that alone make that policy acceptable if its unconstitutional. The Con has not used logic, historical context or any plain language analysis that concludes him to believe the the 8th amendment was intended to allow the government to deny bail to persons presumed to be innocent. The Con simply post the text for the 8th amendment and argues public safety trumps constitutional protections I guess.