Bail is decided by a judge, and their lives are devoted tohandling these types of decisions. There are three solid reasons to why I feelit is necessary to deny bail to those accused of violent crimes. One is thatall conditions for release are decided by a judge who is fully aware of thecircumstances. Another is that these defendants, since being arrested, shouldbe considered a threat to public safety.
My last, and final, reason is that myrationale strongly agrees with denial of bail to the accused. In Nebraska, as written in the Statutes of Nebraska, bail is grantedafter a judge takes into account the nature and circumstances of the offensecharged. This judge looks at the defendants family ties, employment, financialresources, character and mentality, having resided in the community, convictionrecords, and record of court appearances or of flight to avoid prosecution orfailure to appear. A judge, when deciding if bail is to be granted, does notjust flip a coin to decide.
He or she looks at all aspects of the situation. It all rests in the judge’s hands. When a judge looks at a person accused of aviolent crime, such as murder, a few things are liable to pop into perspective. One would be to how violent and detrimental the accusations are. Any rationalthinking person would realize that if arrested, they are in suspicion.
Therefore, a state appointed judge is also going to realize that this personmust be a threat, especially if accused of a violent crime. It does not violatethe accused rights, because once under arrest, their rights are strictly definedas what the judge’s final decision is. This leads me to my next point, that these accused people are a threat. The purpose of bail, as defined by the Nebraska Statute, is to ensure that thedefendant will show at the trial. I researched a case where this was stronglyconsidered.
Brian Mase is accused of shooting and killing John Boyer, afterBoyer refused to leave Mase’s home. They were in a fight over a stolen watch. Friends and relatives gave evidence that Mase had premeditated the murder bymaking numerous phone calls to Boyer and various threats outside of Mase’s home. The judge denied bail for reasons that I completely agree with. Since theprosecution had evidence that Mase planned to kill Boyer if he ever came to hishome, the judge felt there was a risk involved with Mase staying in the countyif granted bail.
They suspected that Mase might flee after he learns what typeof case the prosecution has against him. The defendant’s attorney argued thatMase had nowhere to run, and many relatives. The judges decision in this casedid not follow all of the rules show above. However, the one factor of threatovershadowed all of the rest. Even though Mase had strong family ties andnowhere to go to, even the slightest suspicion that he might flee was enough. Iagree with the decision to deny bail.
I cannot think of anyone who would wanta man accused of killing someone over a watch being able to roam free on bailwhile their trial is in progress. This, in my own opinion, is a perfect exampleof how judges look at the circumstances of the case. My final argument to why bail should be denied is solely based on my ownpersonal analysis. Bail, in my opinion, is a privilege. If I had my own way,bail would only be used in misdemeanor offenses. If a person is accused of aviolent crime there is evidently some inclination for the arrest.
These accusedpeople are not just randomly drawn out of a hat, they have had warrants out fortheir arrest. As many know, warrants have to be approved by a judge, the samejudge who will decide if they are able to post bail. There was enough evidence,circumstantial or solid, for the arrest to be made for these violent crimes, andso there is enough evidence to deny bail to these accused individuals. It isinhumane for someone accused of a violent crime to be able to roam around freewhen their trial is pending.
Once they are arrested, they should lose their bidfor freedom until the verdict is in.