The fact remains that Bland’s family did not provide her bail. That would be depressing to the average person. It might prove deadly to a person suffering from depression and had previously attempted suicide.
Bland had a very bad day. She was stopped by police. She was arrested. She spent the night in jail. She contacted her family. She spent the next 3 days in jail because her family wouldn’t bail her out.
Sandra Bland was primarily and ultimately responsible for Sandra Bland.
Only if you use the bondsman to put up the bail while you only pay 10% of it. If you pay the full bail, you get it back, regardless of the outcome of the court.
No other first world country demands money. See if you can last 2:40
[/QUOTE]
Why? You claimed, incorrectly, that no other first world country demands money for bail. Canada does. It seems to me you can now defend your claim by denying that Canada does, by denying that Canada is a first world country, or you can claim that Canada is not a True Scotsman in some way.
But for the purpose of refuting your claim, my example is supremely helpful.
A preoccupation with Bland in a thread about Sandra Bland? I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that you would reject facts and opinions about Bland. Is that because you would prefer that the Bland families actions during her incarceration not be discussed?
The surety could use assets to prove he could pay if he must. And the forfeiture of the money isn’t automatic, a hearing is required. I think it’s quite fair to say Canada does not demand money for release on bail.
Also, up_the_junction was complaining about a monetized bail system. Bail bondsman are illegal in Canada - you can’t take money to act as a surety.
But apart from the absence of third party bondsman, Canada clearly has a monetized bail system: sureties must prove they have money, and can forfeit money upon the failure of the accused to appear as promised.
In the United States, bail bondsman are paid to act as sureties, which would be illegal in Canada, but other than that, they do the same thing: prove to the court they have money, and forfeit it if the accused fails to appear.
A family has to come up with 5k say in Canada and prove that the government will get it should Bob go on the lamb.
In America, the Bondsman will take a fraction of that 5K and keep it. If Bob goes on the lamb, the bondsman is responsible for the 5K to the government.
If I ain’t rich, I sure know which one appeals more to me.
Well I think that a system that has basically built a loan shark industry is inherently more monetized than one that disallows it.
Regardless, some googling shows that England can also require a “security” of actual cash in some cases for bail. So it’s definitely not true that no western nation demands money. One would have to dig in to actual common practices to see how the States implements cash requirements compared to other First World Nations.
eta: I see what you are saying billfish, but it’s my impression that onerous cash requirements for bail are simply less often imposed in Canada. And if you are middle class and have some money in your savings, it’d be nice to just be able to show you have it rather than hand it to the court for an extended period.
My view would be that Bland’s family had no particular duty to bail her out: she was an adult, living on her own. But the police had a duty to follow their own procedures, and because the police represent the will of the people, we as a society can and should question the propriety of police actions.
Same goes for the jail. Bland’s family doesn’t have an obligation to account to the public for their decision to not bail her out. The sheriff has a duty to account for the conditions and procedures at the jail.
Sandra Bland took her own life. I suggest that a family does have an obligation to it’s members. Not a legal obligation because, as you say, Sandra was an adult, but it’s an obligation just the same. It must be very depressing to discover that your own family would allow you to spend days in jail rather than pop for a $500 bail.
I think it’s safe to say that Sandra’s life already sucked. Being arrested didn’t help her depression, but being abandoned by her family may have pushed her over the edge. When considering why Sandra chose to commit suicide, I believe everything should be considered.
