All Defendants Should Be Guaranteed a Reasonable Bail

My opponent originally posted this as an open debate, and I said I'd like to accept it if he would just modify the conditions (debate time length). However, someone else had accepted the debate before he changed it, so he went ahead and challenged me directly. So I thank him for that. I believe it should be noted, that based on my opponent's argument in his opening round, he is arguing that the offering of "no bail" is never reasonable. This is based on his statement of "Many Defendants are denied bail. The Supreme Court got it wrong, this is unconstitutional. " Therefore, this debate will focus around, if the "no bail" option (or "bail denied" option, pending how you want to word it) is ever reasonable under any circumstance. Even though I am Con, I believe that the BoP is on me to show cases where this is reasonable. So before I begin, I will go ahead and define some words. Bail [1] – "The temporary release of an accused person awaiting trial, sometimes on condition that a sum of money be lodged to guarantee their appearance in court. " Reasonable [2] – "Having sound judgment; fair and sensible, Based on good sense. " I will focus on hypothetical cases which have likely occurred many times in US history, however, the actual examples are not needed. These hypotheticals will be based around the safety of individuals and/or the general public. 1)A man is caught in midst of attempting to kill someone while under heavy emotional rage (perhaps someone slept with his wife or daughter). At this point, the trial is merely a formality that must be observed for justice. A psychological evaluation shows that the man still holds extreme rage against this individual even after being caught (but before the trial). It is reasonable that if the individual is released on bail, that he might use that time to go after the other individual and attempt to harm or even kill that person. If this is a reasonable fear, then it is also reasonable that the person should not be released on bail, so "no bail" or "bail denied" is reasonable. 2)A person, at the bottom of his rope (homeless and penniless) comes to the conclusion that all his problems are purely society's fault. As such, he takes a knife, runs into a mall and begins stabbing anyone and everyone that he can before he is detained by police. With this case, too, the trial is merely a formality that must be observed. If the man has desires to destroy society for wronging him (in his mind). It is reasonable to say that he should not be released back into society until those thoughts have passed. As such, it is also reasonable to deny him bail while he maintains those thoughts. 3)Obama Bin Ladin (or whoever is the next living guy in line for the leadership position) is captured and held to stand trial. Given the severe flight risk that releasing on bail would cause and that he (namely his group of followers) certainly has the finances and means to travel a great distance in a short time to escape, it is also reasonable to not offer a bail to him. These are three hypothetical cases where denying bail is a reasonable action to take. Thank you. [1] . http://www.google.com... [2] . http://www.google.com...