The system is not
perfect but it’s cheaper, safer and guarantees our freedom better than what is
being proposed as “bail reform”.
Some background information
Most people accused and then arrest for a crime are not
convicted for it.
A very high percentage of people that are arrested did
the crime that they were arrested for but are not charged for it, due to lack
of evidence. Or because no one wants to testify against them. Simply stated,
the government could not build a strong enough case against them for a
Most people arrested for domestic violence are never
convicted for it.
You may be arrested for “resisting arrest” and not have
done anything in the first place to be arrested for. Read that again and let
that sink in. (See more on this)
The amount of people that are totally innocent that
have been arrested and convicted is VERY small. We are talking less than 1% of
In most cases, the only punishment for the accused crime is
the process that one has to go through.
Your time dealing with you case
Pay an attorney
Your charges are dropped due to lack of enough evidence
or the good work of your attorney.
With “bail reform” after an arrest your information is taken
at the jail and you are released back into society within hours. Doesn’t matter
what the nature of your crime was. Violent or non-violent crime, bail reform is
based on everyone being able to go free before trial that could not afford bail.
Oh wait; the government can pick and choose who can go free under the new bail
reform system. They somehow fail to point that out to us. Everyone will not go
free. The government will decide and under what circumstances your freedom will
be granted. Unlike the bail system that we work under now (a constitutional
right by the way) the government will now be able to determine who will be set
free and who stays in jail. The current system allows bail for all who are eligible
and is guaranteed by our constitution. With the proposed bail reform, your
freedom will now be in the hands of the government to decide.
The cost of “bail reform” is very expensive. Open your
wallet because you, the tax payer will be paying for it. More taxes, more
government will be needed to replace a system that cost the tax payers NOTHING
now. All who are released without bail and do not attend their court date will
have to be searched for and arrested by the local police. Local cities will
have to hire more officers being paid for by the taxpayer. Etc.
I could go on but I think at some point you have to decide
how do you want your freedom safe guarded?
By the people through a constitutional right that is
already in place.
Or by a local government agency that will cost us much more
The choice is yours.
Bail - It's what we do.
Any Jail Any Bail
I received a
noticed in the mail, requiring me to report for jury duty by calling a phone
number on the day before I was to report. All other times when I called, I was
told, by recording that my service were not needed and that would be the end of
it. But not this time, it seems that my presents was needed at the courthouse
Monday morning at 8:30am sharp.
From 8:30 am to
about 10:15 am we listen to some instructions and watched a video overview of
what we could expect from jury duty. We were given a short break and upon our
return we were given badges and told to report to the courtroom. After we were
settled in, more instructions were given, this time from the Judge. I listen to
these instructions a little more carefully. When the Judge finished, we then
were introduced to the DA, defending counsel and the defendant.
The Judge now
instructed us how to request to be dismissed due to a hardship that we may
incur if serving on this jury. I tried to get out of jury service due to being self-employed
- I am not compensated for my time serving on the jury. I told the judge that
if I don't work I don't get paid. She asked if I had any saving which I
answered with an affirmative and was told that the hardship only applies to
those who do not have savings. You will continue with the jury selection
process. I thanked the judge and left her office being told to report back
After lunch 18
jurors were called by the number we were assigned. My number was not called.
More instructions were given by the Judge and we all listened. They were to
answer 12 or 13 questions given to them out loud in front of the rest of
What do you do
for a living?
Where do you
How long have you
What is your
Any military service,
how were you discharged?
Have you ever
been in a courtroom before if so for what?
Have you been a
victim of a crime?
Those were the
sort of question that was asked. After all 18 answered, the DA stood and talked
for twice as long than was needed to explain two points. They were:
I want you to:
1) Use your
common sense (he made a big deal out of this one)
2) Go by what the
law states as it applies to the case.
The DA starts
talking again. This time he tells everyone that is still listening about some
crazy laws that are still on the books in some states. One of which is in PA
that states that after each mile you drive you must stop and shoot up a flare.
Now he poses this question to individual jurors. If you were on the jury (today)
and it was proved within reason that the defendant did not fire off the flare,
would you find him guilty?
Juror A89 -
guilty of course
Juror A98 -
Juror A67 -
I could not
believe what I was hearing. You have to be kidding me. They were sheep that cannot
use or don't have any common sense. The people answering this question were
college educated some with high level degrees. Hell one juror was a physicist
that answered guilty.
posed, was if you thought that anyone on trial in Alameda County was innocent.
This question was asked right after the DA and the Judge earlier explained that
everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Again one by one each juror
answered with something close to, "Well maybe" or "There is a
chance that one could be." I had to suppress my urge to raise my hand
voicing oh, oh pick me, like Horseshack on "Welcome back Carter." I
also had to contain myself from yelling out the correct answer that, “everyone
on trial is innocent until convicted.” Instead I just sat there shaking my head in
Most jurors did
not understand the follow statement. Would you agree that it's better to let
ten guilty people go free than to have one innocent man go to jail?
innocent man should not go to jail," said most jurors.
should not let ten guilty men free."
No matter how the
defense attorney phrased the question she could one get one straight answer
from the pool of 18. This was scary. Someone’s life was going to be judged by
12 people that could not understand simple concepts and could not use common
sense. After all follow up questions were complete the Judge asked if the
Attorneys wanted to dismiss any jurors. Both attorneys stated no and the Judge
looked up in shock stating, "That this is the first time that has ever
happen in my court."
The Judge thanked
the rest of us for our time, service and dismissed us. I was not needed for
jury service this time.