South Carolina father helps police arrest man accused of looking at teen in bathroom, reports say

submitted by kesh from foxnews.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]gendercritfem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah, but if he gets acquitted he served absolutely no time, if he doesn't pay bail he'll at least rot in a jail cell for a few days.

I mean if someone gets acquitted, that means the jury thinks they didn't actually do the thing they're being charged with, right? So of course they're not going to go to jail. They just didn't do it in this case.

And you don't get your bail money back anyways

Yes you do? That's how bail works.

Instead of giving a larger sum of money to high-risk individuals, a judge could lock them in a jail cell without class discrimination.

Judges already have the ability to do this, which they use if they think that the defendant is likely to flee the country or do more crimes.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I mean if someone gets acquitted, that means the jury thinks they didn't actually do the thing they're being charged with

The jury system is broken. They'll lock somebody up or let somebody go free regardless of the evidence, because they just get some random people who know nothing about the law, and many of them have prejudices that impact their ability to reason such as all-white juries convicting black men of made-up crimes during the segregation era).

Yes you do? That's how bail works.

You don't always get it back. If you're re-arrested (which they often don't need to justify) they can refuse to refund it. It's not a guarantee.

Judges already have the ability to do this

But they usually just let rich folks out on bond, which is class discrimination. (which you even quoted me saying)

[–]gendercritfem 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The jury system is broken. They'll lock somebody up or let somebody go free regardless of the evidence, because they just get some random people who know nothing about the law, and many of them have prejudices that impact their ability to reason such as all-white juries convicting black men of made-up crimes during the segregation era).

So you want people to be able to be punished without any sort of trial, when it hasn't been proven that they've even committed any crime?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's a strawman argument. I'm not against the need for evidence, but rather against the idea that you should be sentenced or acquitted by twelve entirely-random people who quite likely know nothing about the law. I'm not even against juries in generally, just the fact that anyone can serve on them without any qualifications.