If a defendant is denied or unable to make bail, should government be required to pay the defendant's lost income before and during the trial?

[Kelley1]

The Sixth Amendment guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to a speedy and public trial, preventing undue delay between indictment or arrest and the start of trial. However, trials are not speedy. And, incarceration is an undue hardship on the innocent.

An exception to paying for lost income should occur if the person fails to make an appearance, attempts to disappear, and cannot be easily found at home or work.

[Sevenpointfive]

everyone in jail should have the opportunity to earn a wage unless they will be released in a couple of days. but 2 days longer unemployed shouldn't hurt if they aren't actively looking. but after those 2 days they need to compensate them if they want to earn.

what is it? like 70 cents a day they make? enough to feed a starving African child in the 1990's?

[slatyb]

If they are not found guilty, then they should be compensated. Mostly they aren't. People wrongly imprisoned often are.

[OlderAndWiser]

"However, trials are not speedy." That is because delay is a preferred tactic of defense attorneys and they almost always waive the right to speedy trial.

"And, incarceration is an undue hardship on the innocent." Absolutely true, but most people in jail are not innocent.

"An exception to paying for lost income should occur if the person fails to make an appearance, attempts to disappear, and cannot be easily found at home or work." In those instances, the defendant was not in jail, so he or she could be working every day while they are awaiting their trial.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

It's a tricky problem because our let's say you catch a guy stealing, we'll there's specific things that need to be proven if the charges are going to survive the scrutiny of a trial. It's not as simple as the guy left the store and didn't have a receipt. Even if for whatever reason it was clear this was the thief.

So our legal system protects that guy the same way it would if it were all a misunderstanding in a lot of cases.

Now apply that logic to something like a kidnapping or trafficking of dirty drugs. The bail system starts looking like a compromise to an unsolvable problem.

I guess in the wild west, a lot of people were sleeping in tents or paid off houses. The people who couldn't afford bail had less to lose and were more likely to be criminals.

But stealing a snickers from Walmart feels a little different than a cowboy walking off with a loaf of sourdough.

Our laws are a complex system and it's a carefully tuned one at that, if you mess with one small piece of it, it could change everything.

[NaultD]

Life is not fair. You find yourself getting your teeth kicked in by a homeless person and now need dentures. Who's paying for it? Clearly the homeless person who dosen't have a dime to their name is giving you a penny. No free healthcare in the country you are up shit creek without a paddle.

In a similar way you are failing to meet your contacted obligations to your workplace by being arrested. Zero matter weather your innocent or guilty. If anything they have the right to sue you not going to work.

At the same time government is not here to babysit you of fulfilling your obligations or contracts. You are a potential danger to society they will take you away. Bail isn't a normal contract but collateral to meet legal obligations.

100% for getting rid of bail altogether. Maybe a $50 refundable to slap some sence into people and potential get ride there bail.

At the same time a drunk driving ceo gets a free income for who knows how much for how long by your logic.

[katiesmuff]

If that defendant is found NOT Guilty I do think that yes he or she deserves repetitions for that time period plus see to it that they are able to get their job back. Should the dismissal be due to false or misleading information from authorities they also should be held liable and sued.

[loveslongnails]

I believe that if you're prosecuted by a state OR the federal government, and you are found not guilty, you should be paid at least 1/2 to 3/4 of your wage for every missed day of work. If the company you work for decides to fire you because of the incarceration even though you've been found not guilty, they must pay you a severance package of 6 months salary and cover your insurance during that time.

[jshm2]

No.

Also amendments don't "guarantee" shit. There are a plethora of excuses and workarounds that can be used legally.

But American law is largely incompetent.

[Dargil]

If a defendant is acquitted, the authority that indicted him or her should not only pay compensation but also legal expenses.

[Dargil]

That would eliminate a lot of lawfare that is intended to intimidate or bankrupt the accused. If the state or federal judiciary has to assume risk, they will be more judicious. And constantly losing prosecutors and judges should be subject to to recall.

[KostasKouvalis]

Sure. Either that, or the prosecution.

IKD why our trials take so damn long

[RedInnocent69]

You stay in jail. Which is ironic, given the cost. In some places, the homeless would rather be in jail over certain times of year

[888theGreat]

You bend over and hope they don't go in more than 2 inches and hope they don't have anything fatal.

[msc545]

In some cases, yes, and in others, probably not. It just sort of depends on a number of factors.

[LC75LC71]

Absolutely not. If wrongfully accused and proved not guilty a defendant can seek damages.

[Bklynbadboy12]

Nope criminals already have way to many rights in America

[exitseven]

No, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[Paige2006]

Absolutely not!

[oldman26]

Should but don't