Actually, that phrase is the lead in from the news story.
You are correct in that bail is not normally set in cases where any
rational man "might" run, such as when the death penalty applies.
Even in those instances, the core principle is that failing to appear
is likely no matter how clean the defendant's record, community ties,
etc. Bail is normally set in non-capital cases although often at such
high levels as to "practically" egual a straight denial.
>>> "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/25/2006 10:52 AM >>>
Has "innocent until proven guilty" been a fundamental principle
for
purposes of *bail* determinations? As I understand it, there have
long
been presumptions that certain crimes (e.g., capital offenses) are
unbailable; this sounds like an extension of those presumptions, but
nothing terribly new, and not something that affects innocent until
proven guilty as to the *criminal trial*, which is the context to
which
the principle usually refers.
Eugene
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph
E.
Olson
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 7:21 AM
To: List Firearms Reg
Subject: Oh Canada!
Canada To Revise Bail Rules: Innocent until proven guilty
will
no longer apply to people charged with serious crimes in which a gun
was
used, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced yesterday.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2006/11/24/2474003-sun.html
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
