Picking them up at courthouses is bad mmmkay - it encourages people to violate bail and not show up for hearings. It ends up, ironically, making the job of the police harder as a result. There’s good reason why it’s not already routinely done.
“Sheriffs on the frontlines of immigration debate inLoud-living-dogma:
Picking them up at courthouses is bad mmmkay - it encourages people to violate bail and not show up for hearings. It ends up, ironically, making the job of the police harder as a result. There’s good reason why it’s not already routinely done.
State legislators make no better law enforcement policy that do federal legislators, politicians or lawyers. This move is hypocritical, defying federal authority while micromanaging the local police.
It’s actually standard procedure for people to be remanded into custody after a court hearing.
If the risk of being taken into custody is going to cause someone to violate bail, then they shouldn’t be given bail in the first place. The whole point of the bail system is to ensure that people attend court in spite of the possibility that they’ll be taken into custody.Loud-living-dogma:
Picking them up at courthouses is bad mmmkay - it encourages people to violate bail and not show up for hearings. It ends up, ironically, making the job of the police harder as a result. There’s good reason why it’s not already routinely done.
After a court hearing that follows being charged with a crime, and in during which they either apply for bail and are denied or are found guilty and sentenced to incarceration, and so in either case have some inkling that they may end up incarcerated when they show up.LilyM:
It’s actually standard procedure for people to be remanded into custody after a court hearing.
No, the whole point is that they are given bail due to low risk of flight and/or relatively minor charges, and on the understanding that IF they fail to attend court in future then, and only then, they may be subject to a separate charge of breaching bail and can be subject to penalties for it including incarceration. Someone who is likely to get a custodial sentence is likely not even going to apply for bail, as time spent in custody waiting trial and sentencing can usually be factored into the final sentence.LilyM:
If the risk of being taken into custody is going to cause someone to violate bail, then they shouldn’t be given bail in the first place. The whole point of the bail system is to ensure that people attend court in spite of the possibility that they’ll be taken into custody.Loud-living-dogma:
Picking them up at courthouses is bad mmmkay - it encourages people to violate bail and not show up for hearings. It ends up, ironically, making the job of the police harder as a result. There’s good reason why it’s not already routinely done.
I don’t know of anyone who is anti-immigrant. There’s lots of people against ILLEGAL immigration, which the media loves to obfiscute so they can push a left-wing agenda.
@nodito
Which is not? Is it not Catholic teaching that governments exercise a preferential option for the poor? Or is our immigration policy written with this preferential option for the poor?
why aren’t normal standards of conduct around immigration relevant, at least tangential?
I don’t think this case has ANYTHING to do with Catholic teachings on the poor.
You obviously don’t know anything about the criminal justice system. The vast majority of felony arraignments set bail, some state constitutions even declare it to be a right in all non-capital cases. People who aren’t likely to get custodial sentences usually don’t have to post bail, they just get RORed.