|
|
|
|
|
|
by qingcharles
20 days ago
|
|
|
Illinois required means-tested bail even before they scrapped cash bail, by statute. Not a single judge complied with the legal requirements. It was totally arbitrary. Because the judges could not be trusted the decision was stripped from them entirely. And yes, the 8th Amend. forbids excessive bail too. Nobody cared enough. Also, even if a defendant was adequately means-tested it doesn't mean they can access their wealth from within jail. Really hard to get your Charles Schwab 2FA codes inside a cell. |
|
|
You say "required", immediately followed by "not complied". These two concepts are mutually exclusive. If one requires it, compliance is not optional, if one allows non-compliance, then there is no requirement. Illinois may have mentally retarded legislators, or lunatic judges, or both. The latter is especially possible if judges are willing to do no bail, after having done constitutionally impermissible excessive bail. In any event, those judges could be impeached, one after another, and if the judges attempted to fight being impeached through procedure, executed for literal crimes against humanity.
>Also, even if a defendant was adequately means-tested it doesn't mean they can access their wealth from within jail. Really hard to get your Charles Schwab 2FA codes inside a cell.
While you might be correct in principle, I suspect that the sorts of people being arrested don't actually have a Charles Schwab 2FA codes. If this turns out to be a problem (which I doubt), there are practical solutions that could be implemented. Sheriffs' deputies can be sent along with the defendant to retrieve said wealth or whatever.