For the legal savy folk...

For the legal savy folk...

I was watching the news this evening in which I heard a story about a police detective that was indicted for possessing and distributing child pornography. I say this is a good thing but this is not the point of this thread, just the background to get me to the following question:

The story went on to say that he and his attourney visited the judge today and he was released on a $10k "unsecured" bond. How does this work? I understand the term "unsecured" to mean not collected. If this is the case then what would happen if he decides to jump bail? Would he stop by the courthouse and hand them a check on his way to the airport to catch the next flight to Venezuala?

You can see where this doesn't seem logical to me.

 

Here in California, I believe they call it "personal recognizance" (sp?). In other words, you give the judge your word and he takes it. If you don't show up, then you owe the court a dollar amount when they catch you, plus additional criminal charges.

I'm not an attorney, but, got popped for a 502 (DWI) twenty years ago. after the mandatory 4 hours in the drunk tank, I was released in such a manner. If you have a long record, or are not from the area, then you gotta put up the dough to get out.

I will yield to my more learned colleagues in the OTF, if this is not the case.

 

His immovable house and other immovable assets are worth alot more than 10k.

 

I'd be heading to Venezuala if I was him.

 

If a bail was ordered and posted, somebody paid the money. Usually, there is a ratio of about 10/1 that a bail bondsman will front, so you would have to give the bondsman $1000 to secure the $10 000 bond.

You have two deterrants in that case to keep you from hopping on Air Cuacas. First of all, you would lose your $1000. Secondly, you would become a fugitive, so you would have the cops and the bailbondsman (who you owe $9000 plus juice) hot on your tail, and if they catch you, you would be in a far worse legal position.

We do not have "unsecured" bonds in the jurisdictions where I practice, but I am going to guess that it means he was able to get the bail from the bondsman without fronting any money, and the bondsman had to report this to the court. Bond is set based on two factors: the danger (or lack) to society posed by releasing a person, and the likelyhood that the person will appear for future court dates. It ranges from ROR for a person that isn't a danger who won't leave the jurisdiction to no bail for dangerous persons or flight risks. I'd bet an unsecured bond falls in between, close to ROR but requiring some guarantee of good behaviour and future appearance.

 

This was in one of the top google hits for "unsecured bail bond:"

TYPES OF BAIL

OWN RECOGNIZANCE BAIL
The judicial officer may release a defendant on his/her own recognizance, also known as "OR" bail. The defendant is not required to pay any money, but must sign a bond guaranteeing their appearance for future court appearances.

UNSECURED BAIL
If a judicial officer imposes an unsecured bond, the defendant must sign a bond guaranteeing his/her appearance for future court appearances. If the defendant does not appear, the Court will require the defendant to pay a designated amount of money.

SECURED BAIL
The defendant must pay the Court a designated amount of money or post security in the amount of the bail in order to be released. This security can be in the form of cash or property and may be posted by the defendant or by someone on his/her behalf, e.g., a relative or a bail bondsman.

CASH ONLY
The defendant, or someone on his/her behalf, must pay the Court a designated amount of money in order to be released. The defendant, and the co-signer, if any, must sign the bond that guarantees the defendant’s appearance at future court appearances.

(source)

 

Yeah, well I suppose I could have done it that way but I thought this would be an interesting topic of discussion. :uhhuh:

 

Good god. He's a cop, and child pornographer?

I'd say he has two options. One would be suicide, the other taking his chances on a raft to Cuba. They'll eat him alive in jail on the first day.

 

Pretty much the point I was getting at.

Seems to me he would be considered a flight risk. So why the low bond? And why make matters worse by making it unsecured?

I just don't see the logic.

 

To give him a fighting chance?

 

Ah, but at the risk of opening another good cop/bad cop flamewar, would you get the same treatment if you weren't a cop? Why is his fighting chance opportunity any different from any other citizen's?

 

*dons helmet and goggles of returned bannee detection +1*

Never said it was right or wrong, and to be honest my statement was more tongue-in-cheek than anything. I'm in a lighthearted mood this morning.

I personally think this guy should be painfully and slowly castrated with a box of matches and razorblades, and then tied down and left for an angry mob of children armed with bats and knives to finish off.

 

Whoever said the thing about prison though is right.

Ex cops get their asses kicked but child prono's get torn to shreds.

 

Prisoners in danger of being harmed by other prisoners are almost always put into some sort of protective custody. Cops fall into this category automaticallly. That's not to say that the system is perfect (I think I recall Jeffrey Dahmer being in PC when he was killed in prison,) but it's not like they just toss them to the wolves in the general population.

 

I thought we were talking about hollywood prison

*rushes Freet and sticks a pen in his leg*

 

I'm sorry to have to disagree. In theory this is how it works. In reality, the system is so underfunded that it's really gladiator academy for all.

There is a great article written this month by an ex-mob convict turned author. The name of the periodical is "Perfect 10." To all you preverts, skip the photos (especially Miss Veri on page 20, and Miss Veronica on page 86 - 92: my future ex-wife #1 and future wife #2) and read the article. It's an eye opener to the paradox to our self-proclaimed rehabilitation programs.

After reading the article, I'd probably take my chance on the run than turn myself in at all cost. If the judge had read the article, he'd have probably denied bail.

 

*wonders if a subscription to the website includes access to the articles*

 

*drools*
What's that about a website?

 

Well, there are multiple prison systems in this country, so I think it depends on where you are talking about. Each state has its own system with its own rules, the federal government has its own, and there are several privately run systems (CCA, based out of my hometown of Nashville, for one,) that may or may not fall under close governmental oversight.

I have personally been in two prison systems (as a visitor, not an inmate ) and they offerred two different approaches. In the CCA prison in Tennessee, no protective custody prisoners were housed in that facility because they could not be protected. I don't know how they handled them at other sites. In the maximum security prison in Eddyville, Kentucky, PC prisoners were housed in a separate wing of the prison from the general population, took recreation/meals/showers, etc. at different times, and wore special green jumpsuits so you could immediately tell if the populations were mixed.

Of course, no system of dealing with thousands of prisoners is perfect, but it is not like the Sylvester Stallone movie where cops are thrown to the criminals.

 

I was referring to the max security. Out west the structure is the same. But alot of prisoners are murdered before they ever get into PC. Prisoners usually have to stick themselves to provide proof of danger.

I recommend the Perfect 10 article. If your girlfriend catches you with it, claim it was work required reading.