NATION

PASSWORD

Puerto Rican Senate Passes Bill Limiting Right to Bail

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Puerto Rican Senate Passes Bill Limiting Right to Bail

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:36 pm

Puerto Rico Daily Sun wrote:The Senate passed in a voice vote Monday a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the right to bail for certain violent crimes. If the proposed amendment completes the legislative process, the voters will be able to go to the polls on May 2 to reject of accept three proposed constitutional amendments.

The Senate has already approved two other proposed votes on constitutional amendments for May 2. These are on a proposed constitution amendment that would recognise the right to health care for Puerto Ricans and amendments that would restructure the Legislature. to cut the number of lawmakers by half.

The bail amendment reads that all individuals charged with crimes are entitled to be free on bail before trial except those accused of murdering more than one person in the same event; carjacking; distributing illegal drugs in recreational, sports and school facilities; murdering a police officer; murdering a minor 16and younger; and killing a spouse or former spouse.

Popular Democratic Party senators objected to the legislation, contending that the proposed amendment will not deter crime and would open the door to the erosion of civil rights. Senate Public Safety and Judiciary Affairs Committee Chairman Héctor Martínez said the majority was not doing away with civil rights but merely restricting the right to bail.

He said criminals like those who recently killed eight innocent people and an unborn child in a Toa Baja restaurant or kill children, do not care about other people's lives. "Do you think, they should have the right to be free on bail?" he asked. "This does not take away rights from innocent people."

Senate Minority Leader José Luis Dalmau said that the amendment will not help deter crime. He noted that individuals charged with robbery are not entitled to be free on bail and "robberies have gone up."

He also noted that there are other crimes such as arson that are very serious but were not included in the restriction.

Dalmau said that instead of restricting the right to bail, lawmakers should make amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow judges to impose restrictions to individuals who are free on bail, including banning them from drinking alcohol or from going out at night.

Martínez argued that Dalmau had previously opposed amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The orginal legislation called for the vote to take place on the second Sunday of October. PDP Sen. Juan Eugenio Hernández Mayoral proposed scheduling the vote for May 2 but the amendment was rejected.

Fifteen minutes later, a majority lawmaker proposed the same amendment and it was accepted.

Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz reiterated that the bill does not repeal the right to bail but gives voters the option to decide if the right to bail should be restricted. He noted that the right to bail was repealed at the federal level. "if the people want perverts and murderers to be free on bail, then they can vote in favor of this," he said.

The Senate also passed a bill that would ban employers from discriminating against individuals who have prior criminal convictions. However, it allows employers to take into account the job that the person will be doing and the crime the person committed before making a decision about employment.

They also passed a bill that would change the composition of the Puerto Rico Convention Center board to include the mayor of San Juan and cut to one the representative from the private sector. Currently, there are two.


This is copied word for word from a local English language newspaper. Sorry for the lack of a link, they don't have an online site yet.

But I think this is absolutely outrageous and the ignorance for the law that these Senators displayed is totally unacceptable.

Let's take a look at this: He said criminals like those who recently killed eight innocent people and an unborn child in a Toa Baja restaurant or kill children, do not care about other people's lives. "Do you think, they should have the right to be free on bail?" he asked. "This does not take away rights from innocent people."

Firstly, it was a bar, not a restaurant (just wanted to point that out). And yes, it does take away rights from innocent people. Because perhaps you don't remember, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Also: Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz reiterated that the bill does not repeal the right to bail but gives voters the option to decide if the right to bail should be restricted. He noted that the right to bail was repealed at the federal level. "if the people want perverts and murderers to be free on bail, then they can vote in favor of this," he said.

Rivera Schatz is first off, a well known dickhead, but that's besides the point. We cannot know for sure without the due process of law if those people really are perverts and murderers. You can't pass judgment based on assumption.

So I say to el Senado: :palm:
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:42 pm

In my opinion, I find that in the justice system it is hard to balance out the benefits and disadvantages of bail because there are potential offenders that are violent as well as those who just lost temper and then regretted it. I was thinking of a system in which each bail application was reviewed on a case by case basis, rather than assumption.

User avatar
Neo Art
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14258
Founded: Jan 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Neo Art » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:44 pm

The problem is, of course, that if you go the route to the full manifestation of "innocent until proven guilty" how can we hold ANYONE awaiting trial? Or during trial? Or indeed, at any point until they are actually convicted. If we hold innocence until guilt is proven to be TRULY innocent, and equal to all others, how could we hold people who have actually been arrested for any crime? If I'm truly 100% innocent until my guilt is proven, then I can't be detained, at all, during my trial for, say...murdering 8 people. After all, I'm still considered innocent.

In a broad sense, the justice system does require a middle ground, a "reasonably suspected" area, to simply allow the justice system to do its job.
if you were Batman you'd be home by now

"Consistency is a matter we are attempting to remedy." - Dread Lady Nathinaca

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:47 pm

Neo Art wrote:The problem is, of course, that if you go the route to the full manifestation of "innocent until proven guilty" how can we hold ANYONE awaiting trial? Or during trial? Or indeed, at any point until they are actually convicted. If we hold innocence until guilt is proven to be TRULY innocent, and equal to all others, how could we hold people who have actually been arrested for any crime? If I'm truly 100% innocent until my guilt is proven, then I can't be detained, at all, during my trial for, say...murdering 8 people. After all, I'm still considered innocent.

In a broad sense, the justice system does require a middle ground, a "reasonably suspected" area, to simply allow the justice system to do its job.

True, but then instead of refusing you the right to bail, why not put travel and other restrictions on you for the time being? This is arguably limiting your rights as well but I think it's a bit better than detaining you for possibly no reason.
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
New Kereptica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6691
Founded: Apr 14, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby New Kereptica » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:48 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Neo Art wrote:The problem is, of course, that if you go the route to the full manifestation of "innocent until proven guilty" how can we hold ANYONE awaiting trial? Or during trial? Or indeed, at any point until they are actually convicted. If we hold innocence until guilt is proven to be TRULY innocent, and equal to all others, how could we hold people who have actually been arrested for any crime? If I'm truly 100% innocent until my guilt is proven, then I can't be detained, at all, during my trial for, say...murdering 8 people. After all, I'm still considered innocent.

In a broad sense, the justice system does require a middle ground, a "reasonably suspected" area, to simply allow the justice system to do its job.

True, but then instead of refusing you the right to bail, why not put travel and other restrictions on you for the time being? This is arguably limiting your rights as well but I think it's a bit better than detaining you for possibly no reason.

They are putting travel restrictions on: you can't go outside the holding cell.
Blouman Empire wrote:Natural is not nature.

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Umm hmm.... mind if I siggy that as a reminder to those who think that it is cool to shove their bat-shit crazy atheist beliefs on those of us who actually have a clue?

Teccor wrote:You're actually arguing with Kereptica? It's like arguing with a far-Left, militantly atheist brick wall.

Bluth Corporation wrote:No. A free market literally has zero bubbles.

JJ Place wrote:I have a few more pressing matters to attend to right now; I'll be back later this evening to continue my one-man against the world struggle.

Mercator Terra wrote: Mental illness is a myth.

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:49 pm

New Kereptica wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Neo Art wrote:The problem is, of course, that if you go the route to the full manifestation of "innocent until proven guilty" how can we hold ANYONE awaiting trial? Or during trial? Or indeed, at any point until they are actually convicted. If we hold innocence until guilt is proven to be TRULY innocent, and equal to all others, how could we hold people who have actually been arrested for any crime? If I'm truly 100% innocent until my guilt is proven, then I can't be detained, at all, during my trial for, say...murdering 8 people. After all, I'm still considered innocent.

In a broad sense, the justice system does require a middle ground, a "reasonably suspected" area, to simply allow the justice system to do its job.

True, but then instead of refusing you the right to bail, why not put travel and other restrictions on you for the time being? This is arguably limiting your rights as well but I think it's a bit better than detaining you for possibly no reason.

They are putting travel restrictions on: you can't go outside the holding cell.

...

Smartass. :p
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
Lunatic Goofballs
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 23629
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Lunatic Goofballs » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:54 pm

I always thought that the purpose of setting high bail or refusing it entirely was to prevent flight not to punish certain crimes that the accused hasn't even been convicted of yet. :?
Last edited by Lunatic Goofballs on Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Life's Short. Munch Tacos.

“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”
Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:56 pm

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I always thought that the purpose of setting high bail or refusing it entirely was to prevent flight not to punish certain crimes that the accused hasn't even been convicted of yet. :?

But in effect, it does punish the person who had his or her bail rights taken away.
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
Lunatic Goofballs
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 23629
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Lunatic Goofballs » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:59 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I always thought that the purpose of setting high bail or refusing it entirely was to prevent flight not to punish certain crimes that the accused hasn't even been convicted of yet. :?

But in effect, it does punish the person who had his or her bail rights taken away.


That's what is confusing me. Refusing bail automatically for certain crimes feels like pre-punishment to me. On the other hand, refusing it for someone who is a major flight risk regardless of the crime seems prudent.
Life's Short. Munch Tacos.

“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”
Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:01 pm

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I always thought that the purpose of setting high bail or refusing it entirely was to prevent flight not to punish certain crimes that the accused hasn't even been convicted of yet. :?

But in effect, it does punish the person who had his or her bail rights taken away.


That's what is confusing me. Refusing bail automatically for certain crimes feels like pre-punishment to me. On the other hand, refusing it for someone who is a major flight risk regardless of the crime seems prudent.

So now we ask ourselves, should we just group possible offenders of having flight risks or maybe evaluate them on an individual basis?
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
Lunatic Goofballs
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 23629
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Lunatic Goofballs » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:02 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I always thought that the purpose of setting high bail or refusing it entirely was to prevent flight not to punish certain crimes that the accused hasn't even been convicted of yet. :?

But in effect, it does punish the person who had his or her bail rights taken away.


That's what is confusing me. Refusing bail automatically for certain crimes feels like pre-punishment to me. On the other hand, refusing it for someone who is a major flight risk regardless of the crime seems prudent.

So now we ask ourselves, should we just group possible offenders of having flight risks or maybe evaluate them on an individual basis?


Individual basis. It always struck me as the judge's job. ;)
Life's Short. Munch Tacos.

“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”
Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
Buffett and Colbert
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32382
Founded: Oct 05, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Buffett and Colbert » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:05 pm

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I always thought that the purpose of setting high bail or refusing it entirely was to prevent flight not to punish certain crimes that the accused hasn't even been convicted of yet. :?

But in effect, it does punish the person who had his or her bail rights taken away.


That's what is confusing me. Refusing bail automatically for certain crimes feels like pre-punishment to me. On the other hand, refusing it for someone who is a major flight risk regardless of the crime seems prudent.

So now we ask ourselves, should we just group possible offenders of having flight risks or maybe evaluate them on an individual basis?


Individual basis. It always struck me as the judge's job. ;)

So in this case, lumping people with similar offences as not being eligible for bail is rather silly, no?
If the knowledge isn't useful, you haven't found the lesson yet. ~Iniika
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Clever, but your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

His Jedi mind tricks are insignificant compared to the power of Buffy's sex appeal.
Keronians wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:My law class took my virginity. And it was 100% consensual.

I accuse your precious law class of statutory rape.

User avatar
Lunatic Goofballs
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 23629
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Lunatic Goofballs » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:06 pm

Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I always thought that the purpose of setting high bail or refusing it entirely was to prevent flight not to punish certain crimes that the accused hasn't even been convicted of yet. :?

But in effect, it does punish the person who had his or her bail rights taken away.


That's what is confusing me. Refusing bail automatically for certain crimes feels like pre-punishment to me. On the other hand, refusing it for someone who is a major flight risk regardless of the crime seems prudent.

So now we ask ourselves, should we just group possible offenders of having flight risks or maybe evaluate them on an individual basis?


Individual basis. It always struck me as the judge's job. ;)

So in this case, lumping people with similar offences as not being eligible for bail is rather silly, no?


Yes. It's silly. And not the good kind of silly.
Life's Short. Munch Tacos.

“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”
Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
New Kereptica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6691
Founded: Apr 14, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby New Kereptica » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:13 pm

Triple post? By a mod? WHAT HAS THE WORLD COME TO?
Blouman Empire wrote:Natural is not nature.

KiloMikeAlpha wrote:Umm hmm.... mind if I siggy that as a reminder to those who think that it is cool to shove their bat-shit crazy atheist beliefs on those of us who actually have a clue?

Teccor wrote:You're actually arguing with Kereptica? It's like arguing with a far-Left, militantly atheist brick wall.

Bluth Corporation wrote:No. A free market literally has zero bubbles.

JJ Place wrote:I have a few more pressing matters to attend to right now; I'll be back later this evening to continue my one-man against the world struggle.

Mercator Terra wrote: Mental illness is a myth.

User avatar
Lunatic Goofballs
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 23629
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Lunatic Goofballs » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:18 pm

New Kereptica wrote:Triple post? By a mod? WHAT HAS THE WORLD COME TO?


Heh. Really? Where? :blush:
Life's Short. Munch Tacos.

“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!”
Hunter S. Thompson

User avatar
Rhodmhire
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17421
Founded: Jun 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Rhodmhire » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:22 pm

As long as I wasn't the unborn baby by some irrational and implausible process of nature, I don't see why they should bother.
Last edited by Rhodmhire on Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Part of me grew up here. But part of growing up is leaving parts of ourselves behind.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Belogorod, Continental Free States, Margraviate of Moravia, Necroghastia, Norse Inuit Union, Notanam, Senkaku, Stellar Colonies, Upper Ireland, Washington-Columbia, Xind

Advertisement

Remove ads