Hi everybody, I’m a first time caller couldn’t find search button, not available to the guests?
Anyway, for a long time I’ve been trying to figure out what is a purpose of bail
( when suspect released before trial )
The “official " explanation is to prevent culprit from running away, then what is a point to set bail say $100000 if crime involved millions in stolen/fraudulently obtained money.
I understand” innocent until proven guilty" concept, but surely if I’m guilty
the bail that small won’t stop me from disappearing so what’s the point ?
Or is it an easy money for the state, who doesn’t care much of solving the actual crime?
Am I being to cynical ,please explain.
One more stupid question:
when judge says to the jury please disregard this statement, what does that mean ? They
ALREADY heard it ?It’s like saying forget that this gay is bold, tall whatever, after they saw me
thanks
The idea is that bail should be appropriate to the crime - if it’s a huge felony embezzlement case, it ought to be high. Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d frozen your assets for evidence in a case like that, although I don’t know. Bail also depends on who you are - if you have a job, a house, a family, and are not a significant flight risk, they’ll let you out. If you’re a flight risk, you won’t get out at all, theoretically.
This question might be better off in the General Questions forum, but I’m new here too, so I won’t make fun of you.
This website will probably be helpful in addition to what Zsofia said.
I’m no expert, but my understanding is that you post bail as a guarantee that you will show up at a later date. When you show up, the money is returned to whoever lent it. There’s no revenue aspect for the state. If you don’t show up, the money is forfeit, so you’re either out the cash or the person who lent it on your behalf is damn angry at you. You show up at the next trial date to either get your money back or keep the bounty hunters off your tail.
Yes, the jury really is supposed to disregard things that the judge tells them to, but, like you said, that can be difficult to do. Going off of Law and Order, lawyers will sometimes bring up evidence that they aren’t supposed to talk about because they know that the jury might consider it even if the judge tells them to disregard it later. Sometimes that gets the lawyer thrown in jail himself, which leads us back to question 1.
Juries are also supposed to disregard any knowledge they may have of things associated with the case and things they heard elsewhere, like in the media. Having been a juror, I assure you that even though we weren’t supposed to consider our knowledge of, say, how fires start and how shady businesses operate, it’s quite difficult not to. It was the subject of a lot of discussion in the jury room - we can’t consider that, that wasn’t brought up in court. You also aren’t supposed to speculate on, say, why somebody didn’t testify or somebody didn’t ask a specific question, which is extremely frustrating. Jurors do their best, but obviously you can’t wipe people’s brains - it’s a compromise to try to be as even-handed as possible.