News Alabama House approves ‘Aniah’s Law’, named for Walt Harris’ late stepdaughter Aniah Blanchard

[SuperNerd]

Exactly.
Some ppl seem gleefully content in assuming "violent thug criminals" are the only ones this type of bill would hurt, and I can somewhat understand that hostility truth be told.

The reality is, those ppl are rooting for a blindspot to become legislated. We forfeit so many of our individual freedoms in the name of "Even safer safety please, Do whatever you need to"

And that only drags us all down imho

I'm tired of police = bad, and I'm seeing this the same way

 

[mkess101]

Exactly.
Some ppl seem gleefully content in assuming "violent thug criminals" are the only ones this type of bill would hurt, and I can somewhat understand that hostility truth be told.

The reality is, those ppl are rooting for a blindspot to become legislated. We forfeit so many of our individual freedoms in the name of "Even safer safety please, Do whatever you need to"

And that only drags us all down imho

This law only applies to Class A felonies is how I read it.

Admittedly I don't know exactly what's a class A felony in Alabama. I was assuming that it was only for more serious violent crimes, but there's a chance I'm wrong and class A felonies in Alabama is broader than I'm assuming it is.

 

[Mr.Maelstrom]

I'm tired of police = bad, and I'm seeing this the same way

I think police are by and large decent folk for the most part. And I'm all for getting beyond sweeping generalizations in favor of recognizing how nuanced these topics really are.
I consider most "new, additional laws" to be somewhat overly reactionary as a general default stance, maybe I'm sincerely wrong in this instance.

It's just a sad ordeal all around

 

[Mr.Maelstrom]

This law only applies to Class A felonies is how I read it.

Admittedly I don't know exactly what's a class A felony in Alabama. I was assuming that it was only for more serious violent crimes, but there's a chance I'm wrong and class A felonies in Alabama is broader than I'm assuming it is.

I hope you're right, honestly. I'd rather be off the mark in this case

 

[Wrapup]

Lol by reading page 1 it's apparent the majority are clueless on what this bill actually does. They won't do a line up of ppl then detain all. Nor is it too "lock up" without conviction. The Bill states BAIL can be denied and you can be detained if your release may cause harm to the community, yourself of both. Also to ensure you attend trial and or an extremely high probability you are guilty. Pretty straight forward and easy to understand.

Who determines if you are “likely to cause harm,” seems like a situation that can easily lead to manipulation.

And should there not be an “extremely high probability” of guilt for anyone arrested and actually charged with a serious / Class A felony crime? If not and people are charged because they may have done something - how does one determine the degree of likelihood of guilt among those charged with crime?

This is a poorly written law that won’t stand up to legal scrutiny - in this country at least.

 

[bigmacbub]

Who determines if you are “likely to cause harm,” seems like a situation that can easily lead to manipulation.

And should there not be an “extremely high probability” of guilt for anyone arrested and actually charged with a crime? If not and people are charged because they may have done something - how does one determine the degree of likelihood of guilt among those charged with crime?

This is a poorly written law that won’t stand up to legal scrutiny - in this country at least.

The District Attorney will present evidence and the Judge decides........... c mon my guy use your noggin. And this bill only affects if you'll receive bail or not(which is NOT a right). You'll still get a trial.....why people are going off on tangents and remarks that have nothing to do with the bill is kinda baffling.

 

[depassage222]

Instead of putting people in prison, just give death penalty to rapists.

 

[mkess101]

Who determines if you are “likely to cause harm,” seems like a situation that can easily lead to manipulation.

And should there not be an “extremely high probability” of guilt for anyone arrested and actually charged with a serious / Class A felony crime? If not and people are charged because they may have done something - how does one determine the degree of likelihood of guilt among those charged with crime?

This is a poorly written law that won’t stand up to legal scrutiny - in this country at least.

You realize that all of this is done already, right? When they catch serial killers, they are held without bail while they await trial.

The prosecutor requests the accused be held without bail. The judge listens to the prosecutor's rationale, then decides. This law seems to just give the prosecutor a wider array of things to present to the judge for consideration.

A very simplistic comparison might be:

Guy is arrested and charged with aggravated rape and kidnapping. Previously his attorneys may have a stronger argument for bail to be granted because the guy has lived in Birmingham his whole life, his family is there, and he doesn't have the means to flee. And while the prosecutor could certainly bring up the gravity of the alleged crime that the guy was being accused of, it wasn't weighted as heavily as the flight risk factor. Now, prosecutors are allowed to use the other factors as the focal point and basis for holding the accused without bail. And thus judges can give it stronger consideration.

Due process isn't under attack with this law imo.

 

[bigmacbub]

You realize that all of this is done already, right? When they catch serial killers, they are held without bail while they await trial.

The prosecutor requests the accused be held without bail. The judge listens to the prosecutor's rationale, then decides. This law seems to just give the prosecutor a wider array of things to present to the judge for consideration.

A very simplistic comparison might be:

Guy is arrested and charged with aggravated rape and kidnapping. Previously his attorneys may have a stronger argument for bail to be granted because the guy has lived in Birmingham his whole life, his family is there, and he doesn't have the means to flee. And while the prosecutor could certainly bring up the gravity of the alleged crime that the guy was being accused of, it wasn't weighted as heavily as the flight risk factor. Now, prosecutors are allowed to use the other factors as the focal point and basis for holding the accused without bail. And thus judges can give it stronger consideration.

Due process isn't under attack with this law imo.

Lol I think you're wasting your time. People in this thread are being wilfully ignorant. The Bill is so fuckin simple to understand.
Every person accused a crime in Alabama will be able to get bail unless a flight risk, danger to themselves, the public or both AND/OR a class A felony. Wtf is so hard to understand.

 

[King in the North]

As usual, overstep by the legislature because they’re reactionary. By design I suppose.


Here’s a takeaway:
Holding people without bail in situations like this is a better idea than setting massive amounts that can never be paid off—because that’s essentially what you’re doing when a judge sets bail at whatever astronomical figure. The idea of cash bail is retarded and on the way out. Or at least it appears that’s the trend.

 

[mkess101]

Lol I think you're wasting your time. People in this thread are being wilfully ignorant. The Bill is so fuckin simple to understand.
Every person accused a crime in Alabama will be able to get bail unless a flight risk, danger to themselves, the public or both AND/OR a class A felony. Wtf is so hard to understand.

Yeah...I honestly am at a bit of a loss in trying to figure out why people would be worked up about this.

 

[bigmacbub]

Yeah...I honestly am at a bit of a loss in trying to figure out why people would be worked up about this.

Its sherdog my guy. Very low IQ people flock these forums. I'm just glad a couple of ppl here have functional brains. Cheers

 

[mkess101]

As usual, overstep by the legislature because they’re reactionary. By design I suppose.


Here’s a takeaway:
Holding people without bail in situations like this is a better idea than setting massive amounts that can never be paid off. Because that’s essentially what you’re doing when a judge sets bail at whatever astronomical figure. The idea of cash bail is retarded and on the way out. Or at least it appears that’s the trend.

You mean the interest from a bail bondsman or something? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Suspects that show up to court aren't out any of their bail $.

 

[King in the North]

You mean the interest from a bail bondsman or something? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Suspects that show up to court aren't out any of their bail $.

I’m talking about bail reform in general. I now realize that my wording was stupid, apologies. Bail bondsman are generally effective but they aren’t an option for everyone—you have to put some money up, and yes, the interest rates on indigent defendants who can come up with the cover fee can be burdensome.

 

[mkess101]

I’m talking about bail reform in general. I now realize that my wording was stupid, apologies. Bail bondsman are generally effective but they aren’t an option for everyone—you have to put some money up, and yes, the interest rates on indigent defendants who can come up with the cover fee can be burdensome.

Gotcha. Figured that's what you meant.