2 ms·
> I'm a bit conflicted here; if someone is being detained pre-trial for a crime, then "they are going to crime again" is a totally valid reason to hold them wit
by user_7832 3y ago
> I'm a bit conflicted here; if someone is being detained pre-trial for a crime, then "they are going to crime again" is a totally valid reason to hold them without bail pending trial. But it's not clear whether that is what is happening here.
Not a lawyer, but doesn't this depend on whether or not it is a violent crime? Someone who may murder again should be treated differently than someone who may shoplift again.
- dfxm12 3y agoLegally, this depends on jurisdiction. From the standpoint of what's better for society, I agree with you.
- andrewla 3y agoNot speaking to law, but in principle this seems like a case-by-case decision that (in the US) I would expect a judge to make. I would expect a competent judge to weigh the societal cost of the crime vs the probability of re-committing it vs the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence. For violent crimes it swings pretty hard on the societal cost of the crime (but maybe be mitigated if the crime was one of passion or if the motive was clear and not likely to result in a re-commission). For jaywalking it swings pretty hard in the other direction. For crimes where there is a victim but no violence, it would depend on the specifics of the case in question.