|
Quote: "Loubier was on bail for other incidents at the time of the crash, a fact George said was "disturbing." Two police officers commented in a presentence investigation for Loubier's case that Loubier had a lack of respect for authority, George said."
Ya think? This is why bail should be eliminated entirely. If someone is guilty.....they are guilty. No reason to let them out on bail to do something "worse" than they have already done....knowing full well that once their case is heard...they are going to jail.
Instead of saying "disturbing"...Georg e should have admitted "an error in judgement". That's exactly what it was. If these types of people were refused bail from day one........the day they commit their crime would be their last day of freedom until their time was served. But no, let them post bail to have the opportunity to kill someone or nearly kill someone before locking them up..........it makes sense, ONLY if your a blind man.
Just another example of the system being too lenient and more crimes committed as a result. Typical..........and needs to be changed, for the best interest of the public, the victims......and in some cases, the arresting officers. Bail also gives the criminal an opportunity to flee. What sense does it make to put the time and effort into catching them......just to turn around and let them go.....assuming they will show up for trial??
Refuse bail....hear the case within 30 days of criminals being sent to jail....and if the judge feels the crime doesn't warrant anymore jail time.......it's on the judge. But society has the satisfaction of knowing the "criminal did NOT totally get away with his crime"
|