All defendants should be guaranteed a reasonable bail

Back Ground The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The Eight Amendment clearly forbids the federal government from imposing excessive bails. The plain language does not make any exceptions. There is no ambiguity in the language. It does not speak of the likelihood as to the guilt or innocence of the offender. It does not mention revoking bail for any reason. It does not speak of bail restrictions of any sort. Thus, a person posting bail should be allowed to go free until trial--without restrictions period--end of story. This must be the case since our justice system is based on the concept that a person is innocence until proved guilty. The government has been permitted to suppress constitutional rights to some degree. For instance, the classic example is one cannot yell fire in a movie theater or instigate a riot. However, in those cases the person was found to not have such a constitutional right. The courts have never ruled that a person gives up his or her right to bail when accused of certain crimes. Thus, a person accused of a crime is guaranteed a right to a reasonable bail. In this instance, the person must be assumed to be not guilty. The accused has done nothing that warrants the circumvention of his or her right to a bail such as instigating a riot or purposely creating public hysteria. If the state or federal government believes that the accused may pose a specific risk upon bail, nothing bars them from having agents or police from keeping constant tabs on the defendant. This would certainly ensure public safety. The government should not be permitted to trample on a constitution right for public and financial expedience. As everyone knows, the Bill of Rights have been applied to the States for many years now. I do not wish to debate this issue. It would seem rather odd that the people would not want the same protections from their individual states as they are afforded by the federal government. If you disagree, I will limit my argument to federal courts that deny bail. How Can The State or Federal Government Deny Bail The statue clearly says government cannot deny excessive bail. One must understand the reasoning behind this amendments. In England, many enemies of the state were put in jail and given excessive bails. They were left in jail for long periods of time without being given a trial date. The founders did not want this to be the case in the United States. How can no bail not be excessive when no amount of money can set an offender free? One must admit that the court could rule some amount that an offender had to come up for bail can be found to be excessive. This might be 100 dollars or 1 trillion depending on the individual. However, there has to be some tangible number wherein a court would have to admit that the amount was excessive. If such a number exist then it would be impossible for the court to deny bail since that or number always exceeds whatever that number might be. The number would be greater. How does the word "excessive" as used in the eight amendment used to enhance the Federal Government Powers? The word excessive is used to make it clear that the government could impose bail, but not too high. If you take the word out it would read the government cannot deny bail. However, this would be insufficient, in protecting citizens because the government could make the bail so high that the offender could never get out. The word "excessive" is used to limit the power of the government. In order to follow the Supreme Court's logic, the word excessive must have been added to enhance the power of the Federal Government. Now that makes no sense considering the Bill of Rights were designed as protections for people from the Federal Government. What would be the purpose of disallowing the government from imposing excessive bails if they can deny them all together. Does it make any sense to limit the government from imposing too high of a bail, but at the same time allow them to deny bail all together? Any fair reading of the plain language would lead one to assume that bail could not be denied all together especially if there are limitations as to how much the government could impose the bail on a offender. The Supreme Court made this decision primarily because they knew there would be no opposition. There were many states and people concerned that they would be required to impose reasonable bails for dangerous offenders. Many people gave up their right to a reasonable bail due to fears of encountering an offender accused of murder or a violent crime. As a result, the government is now free to impose restrictions on bail and deny bails when they see fit. While they limit denial of bail in murder cases now, who is to say they won't expand the scope in the future. Summary of points to be address 1. Innocent until found Guilty The accused is innocent until proved guilty and therefore the government should not use the likelihood of convictions to deny or issue excessive bails. Any public safety concerns can be quelled by maintaining constant surveillance on the accused. There maybe other reasonable steps made to ensure the public safety when offenders are out on bail . 2. The 8th amendment The plain language found in the 8th amendment is unambiguous, the federal government is not permitted to impose excessive bails. This has since been applied to the states as well. 3. The plain language and historical context prohibits any interpretation the 8th amendment that expands the scope of the government. The amendment has been interpretation such that the government can deny bail. Since the punishment to the accused is greater when the government denies bails rather than impose an excessive bail and the latter is illegal, it seems only logical that the former would be illegal as well. One would not punish an offender who attempts to commit murder, but make it legal to actually commit a murder. One must examine the purpose of any statue or amendment. The practical interpretation of that statue or amendment must support the purpose and not contrary to it. The purpose of the 8th amendment is to limit the power of the government in matters of imposing bails--this is a fact. The government is not allowed to impose excessive bails. One cannot interpret the plain language of a statue or amendment in manner that increases the authority and scope of the government even if such ambiguity exist. The Supreme Court was well aware that the eighth amendment was a part of the Bill of Rights, which are protections granted to the people from the government. However, it has been interpreted as a right of the government to impose no bail on citizens. 4. Questions that should be addressed What bars the Supreme Court from expanding the scope of government to include other crimes for which they could deny bail on? Is it not possible for the government to imprison a political leader without bail because they believe that he or she poses a public safety concern? Closing Statement For the above reasons, the government should not be able to deny bail or make the amount unreasonable for the accused. The accused must be assumed to be innocent, regardless of the crime or the likelihood of conviction. We are innocent until found guilty in the county. The eighth amendment explicitly forbids the government from imposing excessive bails. Moreover, one should reject any interpretation of the amendment if that interpretation increases the scope of the government since the amendment was designed to curtail the powers of the government. In order to maintain our rights, we must protect the rights of all citizens, even those ones believed to be guilty or present safety concerns.