Murder and Bail.
I overheard today that one of my infamous grade school chums, Carmen, was arrested again for attempted murder this time, involving yet another drug deal.
About 6 months ago, he apparently killed a guy by stabbing him in the gut during a drug deal --- apparently with 3 eye witnesses.
Now, I might not be a rocket scientist of the law, but shouldn't that have been enough to deny him bail?
And the courts should know very well that a drug dealer may very well have loyal friends with tons of his drug money stashed away to use for his bail -- which I'm guessing must have happened. I know Carmen's family didn't have that kind of money, and I'm guessing bail for 1st degree murder must be hefty.
I hate to rant about the blatant idiocies of our legal system, but, like poking good fun at a president, it's just too damn easy. :)
posted by Medieval @ 10:21 a.m.
5 comments
5 Comments:
being a qualified rocket scientist of the law... generally speaking murder isn't a charge they give you bail on... so somewhere along the line there's some misinformation somewhere. Generally speaking suspected violent drug dealing murders don't get put back out on the street, no matter how much money they have.
In fact, thinking about it even more, murder is a 469 offence, which means there's a reverse onus on bail.
What that means is NORMALLY, it's up to the crown to prove that you're a) a threat to society b) a flight risk or c) your release would put the administration of justice into disrepute (sort of like how you're presumed innocent, its presumed that you SHOULD be allowed out).
Certain offences however (like murder) switch the situation around, so instead of the Crown showing why you SHOULD stay locked up, they presume you SHOULD stay in the clink and you have to prove why you shouldn't...
I still have to check on whether this second offense was a rumour or not --- I haven't seen anything in the newspaper, and an attempted murder is newsworthy in Windsor (perhaps not in Detroit :)
His first drug deal related murder is entirely true though.
Carmen is a sociopath who should remain locked up; hopefully he still is.
Thanks for the clarification. I really didn't think murderers would get bail, and the system backs this idea.
I have to agree with you though, the second offense must be a rumour -- I can't see how the system could allow him back on the street.
Unless by some miracle of course he somehow proved to the Crown he shouldn't stay locked up ;)
Well to the Crown and to a presiding judge.... in court.
One of factors they look at is past behaviour, so if he has never been in trouble with the law before, he'd be much more likely to be able to prove he wasn't a threat than if he had a laundry list of prior offences (which a sociopath would likely have)... but I'm not sure that would matter when you're charged with murder.
Another possibility would be that maybe they didn't have enough evidence to pursue charges on the first offence and the charges were dropped? Not so likely if there really were 3 eyewitnesses.
But really, if a suspected murderer was out on bail in Windsor, and then attempted another murder, you can bet the news would be ALL OVER that one.
The only accused murderer who got bail that I can remember was a guy in Windsor (I think his name was William McKenzie) who had gone through about 6 trials.. and was about 60 years old.
It does happen, in some circumstances, but they try to keep dangerous criminal types under lock and key.
I'm usually pretty up on the news in Windsor (thought admittedly not as much recently) and don't remember hearing about Carmen doing anything else. Not that I'd put anything past him, the guy's a nut.
I wonder how many times he made himself faint (which he could do whenever he wanted) so he wouldn't remember being someone's bitch.
Post a Comment
<< Home