Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-12-31
BAIL.

The Court in the case of Hampton re-
fused yesterday to let the defendant out
on bail pending his appeal. This was to
be expected, because the Court but fol-
lows the law of the Territory in this mat
ter Section 3SS of the Criminal Practice
Act OF 1873 makes bail matter of discre-
ton with the Court where the punish
ment is by Imprisonment. To entitle a
defendant to bail after conviction and
pending appeal, there must be good and
sufficient reason shown for allowing it.
The reason did not exist in the Hampton
case, 80 bail was denied.
Our Criminal Practice Act is but copy
of the California Criminal Practice Act,
and it is safe to say that the Legislature
adopting that Act was ignorant of the true
construction of the clause relating to bail
This does not alter the fact that bail,
where conviction has been had and an
appeal taken, is not matter of right,
but matter of discretion. 1t should be
matter of right where an appeal is
allowed and the offense is not capital
crime nor imprisonment for life; and that
this should be SO there is no need to
look for any other reason than the
fact that there are sufficient grounds
for allowing an appeal. The
basis of an appeal is that there is proba-
BILE error in the trial, and SO long as this
probability exists defendant should be
given his liberty upon furnishing the re-
quired security. The trainers of the Con-
stitution were careful to insert in that in
strument a provision saying that exces-
sive bail shall not be required. The
reason for this provision was that the
courts Of England had often placed the
bail of defendants at SO great an amount
that it was an absolute impossibility for
a defendant TO furnish it, and it had been
placed at such an amount that defend |
ants could not furnish hail, thereby
giving plausible excuse for holding
them in durance vile. The provision
purpose of giving protection to the indi-
vidual, the first great care and solicitude
of free State being the preservation of
the rights and liberty OF the citizen. If
it was wise precaution to insert in the
Constitution this provision against re-
quiring excessive bail, is it not
hardship and wrong against
every citizen to make the matter of
bail pending an appeal discretion in
stead of right? The interest of the
State in OBTAINING a prisoner after he is
and pending the appeal of
his case, is that the State may
have custody of him in case it is decided
that he has been tried and convicted ac-
cording to law and that he may then
suffer the penalty for his his offense. If I:
the State is assured that it can have the
custody of his person upon demand,
where is the necessity for the State hav-
ng the prisoner under its immediate {
control? The bail is the guaranty that 7
he prisoner will respond to any order of a
he court. Bail has ever been considered t
safe guaranty for this respone, and g
hat the Legislature of Utah has not SO f
onsidered it is shame, and disgrace to
he Territory. We sincerely hope that
1hen the Legislature which convenes
wo weeks and a half hence, one of the b
rst measures passed by it will be re- n
cal of section 3ss of the Criminal Prac- il
ce Act of 1878. A