3 ms·
> Pro side: I don't see anything wrong with requiring a surety to ensure that people awaiting trial don't flee, in principle. In the UK you get bail automatica
by rlpb 6y ago
> Pro side: I don't see anything wrong with requiring a surety to ensure that people awaiting trial don't flee, in principle.
In the UK you get bail automatically unless you are a flight risk. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Why should the burden of proof not be reversed in the US? What good does it do to automatically assume that everyone is a flight risk, when we know that most people are not?
- Broken_Hippo 6y agoBecause while you are technically innocent until proven guilty, society treats folks that are arrested as guilty unless proven innocent - and even then, if they were acting properly, they think they wouldn't have been arrested. Example: a background check sometimes produces an arrest record (not a conviction), and that can cost a job. Background check companies don't have to be licensed, and no one keeps track. But you are correct: The burden of proof should be reversed. We know most folks aren't a flight risk and gentle measures - such as having folks check in and calling folks to remind them of court dates - have good results.