law thread

>>2263159

You seem to be confusing bail with parole, OP.

Bail is just an amount of money you put up in order to await trial in your own home instead of in a local jail cell. If you're found guilty, no matter how much money you put up, you don't get to walk away.

Parole is when they lessen time off of a sentence for any number of reasons.


Also, most people wouldn't be imprisoned for a first offense misdemeanor simple assault.

>why is giving a longer sentence; then softening that with bail seen as the best policy

Assuming you mean parole, is because it allows for customization of the sentence. Someone, I don't know, steals something. They get the statutory minimum at the very least, and if they behave in prison and seem to have learned their lesson, they get out shorter; if they don't, they can sit in a cell longer. (Which also provides incentive to behave in prison). Since for almost every crime, sentencing guidelines are given as ranges anyway, it's not like you give up much.

>>2263192
ah; well I suppose I confuse the two
embarrassment on my part here

bail I think is part of the issue however, because a combination of bail and a suspended sentence (or parole) often sees an offender walk back into their community the day after they commit a crime; go about their buisines for months until their hearing/trial, then get out after three weeks in low security prison

you have put that person through three institutions, the community hasn't been protected, there isn't a lifestyle change that could help that person get straight
it's especially worrying for drug-violence hybrids

the "customization" argument is common, but doing this through suspended sentences has a number of effect I would question

primarily it puts power in the hands of the prison and the parole board
I would question if the judge was not the most appropriate person to make these decisions

I don't think parole hearings provide enough rights, it's the same time in prison a court would hand down at the end of the day

and I doubt it's effective trying to measure someones behavior in a prison setting and infer what they would do in the community
for serious offenders I understand it' about protecting the community; but the vast majority here are petty-mid offenses

we also see a serious discrepancy with how people are given suspended sentences and parole hearings
there are social arguments made that I think overstep the place of judges and take power away from the community

After having been on the receiving end of our legal system, I feel like I truly have been "red pilled" so-to-speak when it comes to how the courts operate. If you browse sites like Reddit, the court system is always painted in this black and white fashion that operates strictly by the book. It's thought of as this soulless entity that issues punishments verbatim as dictated by the law.

But I have learned that really couldn't be further from the truth.

The attorneys, public defenders, and district attorneys all collaborate outside of the court room and use a great deal of common sense. Factors taken into consideration include prior history, your income/job, what kind of family you have, the neighborhood you live in, etc... and they use this information to come to an agreement on what kind of sentence you should receive. Then they present it to the judge, the judge approves, and you're done.

At least that is how they do it here in Massachusetts. I should be in prison considering what I was arrested for but I am not and I virtually got everything dismissed given my circumstances. They dragged me through the whole procedure of arraignment, pre-trial hearing, motion for discovery, RE-SCHEDULING THREE FUCKING TIMES, and then the actual trial date itself. Then the day before the trial, I am informed that the DA and my attorney have reached an agreement that got me a favorable deal so we don't have to go to trial. The entire thing felt like a fucking charade.

I dunno man. bottom line is, don't trust the retarded liberal shit you read on reddit, because they are all retards. That is what I am getting at here.

>>2263298
I think you are forgetting that bail is discretionary. Not everyone is granted bail. The decision to do so usually depends on the nature of the crime and also how strong the evidence is.

>>2263417
I often ask myself, why do we spend so much money on courts and none in our prison system; only for the court system to let people go because "the prison system is fucked"

all the boys go out drinking together, private prosecutors, attorneys, clerks and judges
sometimes even police prosecutors
I see it as a barrier to fairness

some groups are often cited as being in a cycle of incarceration; but I would argue equally some groups are in a cycle of leniency

for instance men who commit domestic offenses are often very lightly treated if they have important jobs in the community
alcoholics are often treated leniently
business owners can do basically whatever they like

>>2263159
Which is better, civil law or common law?

>>2263462

see, that makes me wonder, if the courts really are making a practical real world analysis using these variables, then would it not explain the incarceration rates for blacks? imagine if you're dealing with a black kid who comes from a fucked up family with siblings already in prison or a father already in prison etc...

this is also ignoring the fact that prosecutors can likely deduce the likelihood of re-offending based on factors during the arrest/crime. prosecutors know if the crime was a "one time oopsie" like it was for me or if it was a deeper-seated issue stemming from that person's affiliations/who they hang out with/the kind of activity they are involved in/etc...

i dunno man. i meet all the criteria for "privilege" (literally a white business owner) so maybe my experience isn't really relevant in the grand scheme of things. not to mention my state is largely liberal so they tend to be anti-prison in the first place

>>2263451
where I am there is the presumption of bail

rule of thumb, everyone gets bail except schizophrenics on violence charges, people who maintain a threat to someone eg. "I'm going to kill him when I get out your honour" and flight risks

and even flight risks are often given bail if everyone think they won't get far.

the big issues where I am are bail for domestic abuse, and crimes paired with hard drug use

drug addicts often continue to abuse substances on release, and are much more likely to breach bail
but they get bail anyway, because it's ben decided better to have junkies on the street than trying to cold turkey pre-trial filling up the jailhouse raising hell

and domestic abuse is a can of worms
give bail to a violent partner, they could be returned to the same household as the witness
it's hard to get the women to maintain their testimony while they are under the influence of the perpetrator
and it's even hard to get women and sexually abused children to come forward in the first place if you can't guarentee the offender will be removed

but on the other hand, it's a common crime and it's hard to gauge the severity pre-trial
we can't lock up every guy who hits his wife pre trial; it would just be too many people
and enough of these offences are petty in nature that the time spent in jail would be more than the sentence
and these proceedings destroy families, an abusive family is bad but you have to weight the impact of a AVO, child custody, divorce etc

File: Occult feels.jpg (99KB, 644x758px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 644x758px

>tfw law school taught you jedi mind tricks

>>2263491
that's what I'm talking about exactly on one end
a black person might be penalized for not having a job, stable family, own his own home, a history of juvenile theft for food

such an assessment is accurate, and the re-offence risk is honestly probably accurately judged too

so do we soften sentencing on people from groups like this; just because they are in the group?
does this not lead to a situation where everyone in their community has copped a slap on the wrist?

and on the other hand, the "privileged" people who are broadly likely to avoid serious sentences (or far more often, get a reduction on appeal and a largely suspended sentence)
is there the risk these people will factor in that leniency to the actual offending?
broadly speaking, it's a disaster if individuals are weighing up how much time they would get before committing a crime

I myself have seen white collar crime where a businessperson has deliberately entrenched themselves on the board of charities, and employs a large number of people on a casual basis, instead of a few on a full time basis
then has nobody under them who can assume these responsibilities

from that foundation, he commits a series of relatively large industrial/fraud crimes
when caught he leveraged "how much the community needed him"

Family law exam in 3 hours.
Wish me luck lads.

>>2264404
family lawyers best to drink with

good luck anon :D

This thread is interesting.
I was just thinking about this stuff.

In 2011 I wrecked a vehicle with no license or insurance, I was looking at a wreck when traffic halted and I ass ended a Nissan.

The cops were already on the scene and there was no way in hell I could let them see what was in my pockets so I had to run.

I made it out of sight of the police then ditched some shit before they caught up and tazed me.
I was taken to jail and let out on $5000 bond the next day.
I was facing over two years in state penitentiary for my offences, six charges all together.

Six months later I went to court and to my surprise I got off with $1200 in fines+court costs and a $500 judgement for the driver of the Nissan's medical bills.

I paid the $500 first for obvious reasons and am still slowly paying off the rest.
My license is suspended until I do.

Fast forward to last year and I got in trouble again because I forgot I had a $2.00 chocolate milk in the front of my buggy when checking out at a family Dollar.

The faggot clerk let me walk out and called the law on me, they issued a warrant but I found out about it and contacted them before they could pick me up.

They met me and wrote a ticket so I missed going to jail again.
I was fined almost $250 for that.

I'm a lucky motherfucker because my uncle used to be the mayor and my aunt was county commissioner.

In my state they cannot imprison you for unpaid fines but they can take your license.

>>2264461
>tasered by police when you don't have a weapon
>being searched for a traffic stop
>$500 for medical on a rear end (how was this justified?)

theft rap sounds about right

>>2264516
They tazered me because I ran and they were fucking pissed.
The $500 was for the other drivers doctor visit to make sure she was OK.
I had six charges and took a plea on the three lesser ones but I still haven't paid the fines off.

I'm worried the judge will pull my file and summon me again for contempt because I've broken my end of the plea.
I paid the $500 first because the woman could legally contact the courthouse and get me arrested if I didn't.

I paid $10 on those fines two months ago and $100 on the shoplifting so an attempt was recorded.

This shit ruined my life honestly, I'm struggling to keep a job because I can't drive and I got a divorce because it was my wife's car.

A accident ruined my life, but it's my fault so.....yeah

>tfw class doesn't start till March
I've finally reached the interesting stuff like crime and employment but I've [spoiler]already done them at my clarkship[/spoiler]. What's your least favourite practise area lawbros?

>>2264546
>$500 for a doctor
confirmed for america

why would you be charged with contempt?
doesn't your state have a hardship consideration for unpaid fines
usually you can get a repayment plan or convert some to hours of community service

>>2264681
I don't know, I just try and plan for worst case scenarios.
You know, Murphy's Law and all that shit.

I would have to hire a lawyer again to get the ruling changed and I'm too poor now.

It's been six years so I think I'm in the clear.