All Defendants Should Be Guaranteed a Reasonable Bail

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. I will assume council for the accused the Con mentioned in the hypothetical. 1. Innocent until found Guilty I would point out to the judge that my client is innocent until proved guilty. I would argue that my client has an excellent chance for acquittal as any good attorney would. I would also point out to the judge that the court that the courts cannot not impose an excessive bail even in light a damning psychological evaluation or likelihood of a conviction. 2. The 8th amendment I would take a copy of the constitution out and read aloud the pertinent part of the eight amendment "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." I would declare that the court cannot impose an excessive bail for my client. 3. Historical Context I would point out to the court the historical context for which the 8th amendment was borne. Many people in England were placed in jail and given excessive bails because they spoke ill of the governing class. In response to this injustice England passed legislation barring excessive bails on the accused. The founder fathers wrote the 8th amendment largely with this injustice in mind. The founding fathers understood that the power to impose excessive bails could be used to suppress free speech. Moreover, the Bill of Rights were made with the specific intent to protect the rights of the people from governmental tyranny. 4. Plain Language of the 8th amendment I would argue to the court that the 8th amendment makes no distinction between violent and non violent crimes. The plain language says that "excessive bail shall not be required" which means it applies to all crimes wherein the government demands bails. This simply means that the government cannot impose a bail so excessive that it would prohibit a person of normal means from being able to raise such bail. 5. Logical Analysis I would argue that it would be illogical that the courts would be limited as to the dollar amount it could impose on a defendant accused of a crime, yet be permitted to deny bail altogether. If the government can deny bail and that denial can be found not to be excessive than there can be no dollar amount, regardless of the amount, that could be found to be excessive since the former is always greater than the latter in theory. For instance, a person would be better off to be imposed a 500 trillion dollars bail versus someone being denied bail completely. If one believes that 500 trillion dollars is an unreasonable bail then they have no choice but to also reject no bail since it is more than 500 trillion in theory. Moreover, if one believes that that government can deny bail, then what is the purpose of the 8th amendment. If the 8th amendment does not limited the government from imposing any amount or denying bail all together than what purpose does it serve. How does it protect citizens? It is illogical that the 8th amendment limit's the government from imposing certain dollars amounts but permits denying bail which is a greater injustice. 6. Summary of Arguments I would argue that the court, by denying my client bail, is imposing a bail amount greater than 500 trillion dollars which I use because it exceeds the total amount of available currency in the United States. It is unreasonable and excessive by definition since the amount is unattainable. Even Bill Gates would remain in behind bars. I would argue that the bail must be some number, at the very least, lower than the total amount of all currency in the United States. I would also argue that the part of the 8th amendment concerning excessive bails is rendered null and void if the government is permitted to deny bail completely. For these reasons, the appellant court would have no choice but to force the lower court to impose a new bail that is less than 500 trillion dollars. As for the public safety issues. It is the government responsibility to protect witnesses and the public at larger while my client is out on bail. They must maintain close surveillance on him if they feel its necessary to ensure public safety. However, they are not allowed to impose an excessive bail on my client which because it violates his rights under the eighth amendment. 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. If the homeless man seeks bail, then the bail cannot exceed more than all the money that exist in the United States. One cannot possibly argue that such a bail would not be excessive. Thus, the homeless man must be granted a bail that is at least lower than that amount. If all the money in the United States equals 500 trillion dollars than its must be some number under that amount. The eighth amendment guarantees the homeless man the right against having to obtain an excessive bail. If a bail exceeds all the money in the United States--it is excessive. Why would the government impose a 500 trillion dollar or more bail when the homeless man is presumed innocent of the crime anyway? It is, however, possible that the homeless man will be committed to a mental institution irrespective to his innocence or guilt to the crime in question--especially if he "has desires to destroy society for wronging him in his mind." The government can take this action if the man's mental state poses a risk to himself or others. There is no need to violated the homeless man's constitutional rights which guarantees that he shall be free from having to obtain an excessive bail. 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. I assume that my opponent is referring to Osama Bin Laden. Since Osama Bin Laden or any leader from another country would be in effect declaring war on the United States they would be declared as an enemy combatant. Enemy Combatants are not covered by the 8th amendment. These individuals would be tried in a Military Tribunal. Of course bail could be denied in this instance. One last thought to consider A court has the option to either require or not require bail. The court rarely requires bail for less serious crime. The accused How then is it possible for the court to not require bail, but still hold the accused. The accused is presumed innocent so what is the government holding them for. The founding fathers presumed that the accused would go free if the court choose not to require bail.