Thai Cabinet Okays Bail Funds For Jailed Red Shirts

[rixalex]

All these contortions and gyrations in these posts obfuscate one basic fact guiding this government: Remember their self-administered motto: "Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Acts" Thaksin has funded and directed the Reds from their instigation. He doesn't want them behind bars or found guilty of anything. He's rich. He can essentially do what the heck he's willing to pay for in Thailand. No matter that he resides far away, he has proxies in the top gov't positions. If he wants the Reds let off, he gets what he wants. Simple.

You can't jet go of the Thaksin obsession can you? Get it through your noggin, having the Redshirts on ice keeps them out of the way. it is in the government's best interests and Thaksin's best interests to leave them on remand. The government can't interfere because the bail laws are what they are. Over 1 1/2 years without a trial and one could be shocked if and when the trial does happen. A sympathetic judge might say the poor dears suffered and let them go. Do you honestly think Mr. Thaksin wants any political activists running about? If Thailand is calm, he has a better chance of being allowed back.

That would all be true if Thaksin's fight was over; if Thaksin had returned to Thailand and had regained the money and the power he feels is rightly his; if Thaksin had sought some vengeance over those he feel did him wrong. None of that he has really been able to achieve as yet. Of course he has regained some power and he exerts more influence, but do you really think he is happy to just go on pulling strings from thousands of miles away. Of course not. There is much work still to do, and his need for having footsoldiers on the ground to pressurise and push things in his direction is still strong. The footsoldiers need to be kept happy and motivated. This bail nonsense is all part of that.

[Skywalker69]

That has surely got to be a joke.... is it April the 1st already..?

It seems it´s April the 1st everyday in the LOS.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Skywalker69

[rixalex]

Letting suspects go without any incentive for them to return should they be likely to be found guilty, is not a solution at all. All it is doing is creating a new potentially much bigger problem down the road.

An actual and a proper solution would have been to lower the bail sum to something they could afford to pay, but couldn't afford to lose, or, most ideally, to have sped up trials.

When suspects are held without trial for months in a country where bail is often initiated because of the historic court backlog, to find a way of releasing the accused from detention until trial is a good thing, I'm sure the detainees will be found when required.......so what exactly is the issue you have?

Holding people before trial is done for a reason don't you know? Those who are likely to be found guilty, are going to turn up to court for what? To be sentenced and put in jail? Perhaps some with the forethought of not wanting to be on the run for the rest of their lives might, but a lot of others will take their chances.

As for your certainty that detainees will be found, well, all i can say to that is

As for releasing people being a good thing, yeah, i guess it is when the accused isn't being accused of committing something against you and when you couldn't give a toss about those who have possibly been affected.

Edited January 12, 2012 by rixalex

[whybother]

"As well, there cannot be an argument made of favortism for the simple fact that these detainees are the only ones facing the situation."

Do you mean that there are no other poor people in jail because they can't afford bail?

Perhaps if you didn't take a line out of context to alter the meaning we wouldn't have to play this childish game. I wrote;

As well, there cannot be an argument made of favortism for the simple fact that these detainees are the only ones facing the situation. Had their been PAD supporters facing the same predicament, but only the Redshirts given the bail, then there would be favourtism.

Keep in mind that Thailand hasn't faced a similar situation in decades. This is unique. Even at the height of the PAD airpoirt seizures and assault on the government buildings and air traffic control tower at BKK, no one was arrested, hauled off and held for over a year without trial.

If you think that these detainees received favourtism after 1 1/2+ years of captivity without a trial because they were finally allowed access to the fund that they were legally entitled to use, please identify the impoverished inmates held for longer periods that were denied access.

There probabably are people in jail that cannot get bail, Howeeevr, I would be surprised if anyone accused of a non capital crime (e.g. murder) stuck around for more than a year or so as bail amounts for non capital crimes are usually not that onerous in Thailand. So, please go ahead and provide the inmate count. For you to adopt your usual contrarian position, you do have the numbers right? Hopefully, your counting skills are better here than they were in respect to your comments on the Thai tax policy.

I didn't take that line out of context and the full quote was there for everyone to see.

There are more people in jail than just the red shirts, so it IS favoritism.

If someone can't afford bail, does it get reduced at a later stage because the case takes it's time to come to court?

What do you call onerous? Is 90,000 baht onerous? That's what my gf needed to provide for one of her family members for a simple "crime" just last week. He could have been in jail for three months already if she hadn't provided an earlier bail amount.

[OzMick]

All these contortions and gyrations in these posts obfuscate one basic fact guiding this government: Remember their self-administered motto: "Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Acts" Thaksin has funded and directed the Reds from their instigation. He doesn't want them behind bars or found guilty of anything. He's rich. He can essentially do what the heck he's willing to pay for in Thailand. No matter that he resides far away, he has proxies in the top gov't positions. If he wants the Reds let off, he gets what he wants. Simple.

You can't jet go of the Thaksin obsession can you? Get it through your noggin, having the Redshirts on ice keeps them out of the way. it is in the government's best interests and Thaksin's best interests to leave them on remand. The government can't interfere because the bail laws are what they are. Over 1 1/2 years without a trial and one could be shocked if and when the trial does happen. A sympathetic judge might say the poor dears suffered and let them go. Do you honestly think Mr. Thaksin wants any political activists running about? If Thailand is calm, he has a better chance of being allowed back.

That would all be true if Thaksin's fight was over; if Thaksin had returned to Thailand and had regained the money and the power he feels is rightly his; if Thaksin had sought some vengeance over those he feel did him wrong. None of that he has really been able to achieve as yet. Of course he has regained some power and he exerts more influence, but do you really think he is happy to just go on pulling strings from thousands of miles away. Of course not. There is much work still to do, and his need for having footsoldiers on the ground to pressurise and push things in his direction is still strong. The footsoldiers need to be kept happy and motivated. This bail nonsense is all part of that.

This bail nonsense is all part of that................... as is the riduculously high level of compensation payouts.

[geriatrickid]

All these contortions and gyrations in these posts obfuscate one basic fact guiding this government: Remember their self-administered motto: "Thaksin Thinks, Puea Thai Acts" Thaksin has funded and directed the Reds from their instigation. He doesn't want them behind bars or found guilty of anything. He's rich. He can essentially do what the heck he's willing to pay for in Thailand. No matter that he resides far away, he has proxies in the top gov't positions. If he wants the Reds let off, he gets what he wants. Simple.

You can't jet go of the Thaksin obsession can you? Get it through your noggin, having the Redshirts on ice keeps them out of the way. it is in the government's best interests and Thaksin's best interests to leave them on remand. The government can't interfere because the bail laws are what they are. Over 1 1/2 years without a trial and one could be shocked if and when the trial does happen. A sympathetic judge might say the poor dears suffered and let them go. Do you honestly think Mr. Thaksin wants any political activists running about? If Thailand is calm, he has a better chance of being allowed back.

That would all be true if Thaksin's fight was over; if Thaksin had returned to Thailand and had regained the money and the power he feels is rightly his; if Thaksin had sought some vengeance over those he feel did him wrong. None of that he has really been able to achieve as yet. Of course he has regained some power and he exerts more influence, but do you really think he is happy to just go on pulling strings from thousands of miles away. Of course not. There is much work still to do, and his need for having footsoldiers on the ground to pressurise and push things in his direction is still strong. The footsoldiers need to be kept happy and motivated. This bail nonsense is all part of that.

I think you are over estimating both the power and influence of Mr. Thaksin in respect to the Redshirt leaders. Why do you think Veera Musikhapong resigned as a leader? Do you honestly think that Dr. Weng Tohjirakarn, previously aligned with "communists" has any use for a "capitalist" like Thaksin. It must cause Dr. Weng no end of discomfort to even be associated with a man that represents so much of what he loathes. I think you are not appreciating the true nature of the relationships. The Redshirt leadership aren't old schoolmates of Thaksin, not relatives, nor childhood friends. In Thailand, those relationships are needed to cement a relationship. Why do you think the military leadership only picks classmates for key positions? Why do you think Mr. Abhisit selected Mr. Korn as his finance minister? (They were long time classmates and friends). Why do you think the current government has some politicians that worked together years ago (e.g. Finance and Energy ministers). I will go one step further, if there is ever violence drected at M. Thaksin it is highly likely it will come from a disaffected radical UDD member and I offer that Mr. Thaksin knows that.

[473geo]

Holding people before trial is done for a reason don't you know? Those who are likely to be found guilty, are going to turn up to court for what? To be sentenced and put in jail? Perhaps some with the forethought of not wanting to be on the run for the rest of their lives might, but a lot of others will take their chances.

As for your certainty that detainees will be found, well, all i can say to that is

As for releasing people being a good thing, yeah, i guess it is when the accused isn't being accused of committing something against you and when you couldn't give a toss about those who have possibly been affected.

Do you not understand that in Thailand if you can garauntee the amount requested you can be out on bail.....whatever the crime...

You oppose a little equalisation?

[rixalex]

Holding people before trial is done for a reason don't you know? Those who are likely to be found guilty, are going to turn up to court for what? To be sentenced and put in jail? Perhaps some with the forethought of not wanting to be on the run for the rest of their lives might, but a lot of others will take their chances.

As for your certainty that detainees will be found, well, all i can say to that is

As for releasing people being a good thing, yeah, i guess it is when the accused isn't being accused of committing something against you and when you couldn't give a toss about those who have possibly been affected.

Do you not understand that in Thailand if you can garauntee the amount requested you can be out on bail.....whatever the crime...

You oppose a little equalisation?

I oppose suspects being released with nothing whatsoever held over them, to help bring them back to the courts.

[SomTumTiger]

Reds work for and are paid for by Thaksin. Thaksin wants to pra dhet pra khon them. Thaksin runs the government. Reds get released. Not really a complicated chain of events here.

[geriatrickid]

"As well, there cannot be an argument made of favortism for the simple fact that these detainees are the only ones facing the situation."

Do you mean that there are no other poor people in jail because they can't afford bail?

Perhaps if you didn't take a line out of context to alter the meaning we wouldn't have to play this childish game. I wrote;

As well, there cannot be an argument made of favortism for the simple fact that these detainees are the only ones facing the situation. Had their been PAD supporters facing the same predicament, but only the Redshirts given the bail, then there would be favourtism.

Keep in mind that Thailand hasn't faced a similar situation in decades. This is unique. Even at the height of the PAD airpoirt seizures and assault on the government buildings and air traffic control tower at BKK, no one was arrested, hauled off and held for over a year without trial.

If you think that these detainees received favourtism after 1 1/2+ years of captivity without a trial because they were finally allowed access to the fund that they were legally entitled to use, please identify the impoverished inmates held for longer periods that were denied access.

There probabably are people in jail that cannot get bail, Howeeevr, I would be surprised if anyone accused of a non capital crime (e.g. murder) stuck around for more than a year or so as bail amounts for non capital crimes are usually not that onerous in Thailand. So, please go ahead and provide the inmate count. For you to adopt your usual contrarian position, you do have the numbers right? Hopefully, your counting skills are better here than they were in respect to your comments on the Thai tax policy.

I didn't take that line out of context and the full quote was there for everyone to see.

There are more people in jail than just the red shirts, so it IS favoritism.

If someone can't afford bail, does it get reduced at a later stage because the case takes it's time to come to court?

What do you call onerous? Is 90,000 baht onerous? That's what my gf needed to provide for one of her family members for a simple "crime" just last week. He could have been in jail for three months already if she hadn't provided an earlier bail amount.

Ahh, so are you arguing this because you feel hard done by, because a criminal in your family was required to put up 90,000 baht?

Do the math. Your relative was held a day or so and bail was set at only 90,000.

The 57 detainees were held for over 18+ months and bail was set at an average of 800,000

Seriously, can you not appreciate that 90,000 is a lot easier to raise than 800,000? Because of the concentration of detainees from some regions, it would have wiped out the available 3rd party guarantors.The fact of the matter is that your "girlfriend" was able to quickly raise the money. Had she been unable to do so, she could have made an application to the bail fund. Were you expecting the bail fund to come to her and offer the money?

[SomTumTiger]

"As well, there cannot be an argument made of favortism for the simple fact that these detainees are the only ones facing the situation."

Do you mean that there are no other poor people in jail because they can't afford bail?

Perhaps if you didn't take a line out of context to alter the meaning we wouldn't have to play this childish game. I wrote;

As well, there cannot be an argument made of favortism for the simple fact that these detainees are the only ones facing the situation. Had their been PAD supporters facing the same predicament, but only the Redshirts given the bail, then there would be favourtism.

Keep in mind that Thailand hasn't faced a similar situation in decades. This is unique. Even at the height of the PAD airpoirt seizures and assault on the government buildings and air traffic control tower at BKK, no one was arrested, hauled off and held for over a year without trial.

If you think that these detainees received favourtism after 1 1/2+ years of captivity without a trial because they were finally allowed access to the fund that they were legally entitled to use, please identify the impoverished inmates held for longer periods that were denied access.

There probabably are people in jail that cannot get bail, Howeeevr, I would be surprised if anyone accused of a non capital crime (e.g. murder) stuck around for more than a year or so as bail amounts for non capital crimes are usually not that onerous in Thailand. So, please go ahead and provide the inmate count. For you to adopt your usual contrarian position, you do have the numbers right? Hopefully, your counting skills are better here than they were in respect to your comments on the Thai tax policy.

I didn't take that line out of context and the full quote was there for everyone to see.

There are more people in jail than just the red shirts, so it IS favoritism.

If someone can't afford bail, does it get reduced at a later stage because the case takes it's time to come to court?

What do you call onerous? Is 90,000 baht onerous? That's what my gf needed to provide for one of her family members for a simple "crime" just last week. He could have been in jail for three months already if she hadn't provided an earlier bail amount.

Ahh, so are you arguing this because you feel hard done by, because a criminal in your family was required to put up 90,000 baht?

Do the math. Your relative was held a day or so and bail was set at only 90,000.

The 57 detainees were held for over 18+ months and bail was set at an average of 800,000

Seriously, can you not appreciate that 90,000 is a lot easier to raise than 800,000? Because of the concentration of detainees from some regions, it would have wiped out the available 3rd party guarantors.The fact of the matter is that your "girlfriend" was able to quickly raise the money. Had she been unable to do so, she could have made an application to the bail fund. Were you expecting the bail fund to come to her and offer the money?

When your guarantor is Thaksin, 90,000 and 900,000 are the same. Pocket change he stole by raping the country and her people for his own benefit.

[whybother]

Ahh, so are you arguing this because you feel hard done by, because a criminal in your family was required to put up 90,000 baht?

Do the math. Your relative was held a day or so and bail was set at only 90,000.

The 57 detainees were held for over 18+ months and bail was set at an average of 800,000

Seriously, can you not appreciate that 90,000 is a lot easier to raise than 800,000? Because of the concentration of detainees from some regions, it would have wiped out the available 3rd party guarantors.The fact of the matter is that your "girlfriend" was able to quickly raise the money. Had she been unable to do so, she could have made an application to the bail fund. Were you expecting the bail fund to come to her and offer the money?

"A criminal"??????????????????? Do you know anything about what he has supposedly done?????

[SomTumTiger]

You really shouldn't try to use a condescending approach with me considering your position in Thailand. It's bad form and quite gauche.

Still waiting - What is my "position in Thailand" that keeps me from being condescending to you? lol

[473geo]

Holding people before trial is done for a reason don't you know? Those who are likely to be found guilty, are going to turn up to court for what? To be sentenced and put in jail? Perhaps some with the forethought of not wanting to be on the run for the rest of their lives might, but a lot of others will take their chances.

As for your certainty that detainees will be found, well, all i can say to that is

As for releasing people being a good thing, yeah, i guess it is when the accused isn't being accused of committing something against you and when you couldn't give a toss about those who have possibly been affected.

Do you not understand that in Thailand if you can garauntee the amount requested you can be out on bail.....whatever the crime...

You oppose a little equalisation?

I oppose suspects being released with nothing whatsoever held over them, to help bring them back to the courts.

They will probably come back to be told they have served their sentence, don't worry your self into an early grave

[whybother]

Ahh, so are you arguing this because you feel hard done by, because a criminal in your family was required to put up 90,000 baht?

Do the math. Your relative was held a day or so and bail was set at only 90,000.

The 57 detainees were held for over 18+ months and bail was set at an average of 800,000

Seriously, can you not appreciate that 90,000 is a lot easier to raise than 800,000? Because of the concentration of detainees from some regions, it would have wiped out the available 3rd party guarantors.The fact of the matter is that your "girlfriend" was able to quickly raise the money. Had she been unable to do so, she could have made an application to the bail fund. Were you expecting the bail fund to come to her and offer the money?

It's irrelevant how much it is. There are people in jail who can't raise a lot less than 800,000 or 90,000 baht. They are stuck in jail because they can't raise the money for bail. And the red shirts get GIVEN 800,000 baht for their bail? Bail gets set based on the seriousness of the crime, the potential to reoffend and the potential to abscond.

People are stuck in jail until they can pay bail. My gf's relative was in jail for a day ONLY because she could raise the bail. If she couldn't raise the bail when he was initially charged, he would have been in jail for three months already, with the potential for it being a couple of months longer while the investigation continues, for an offense that even you could easily be guilty of.

[tlansford]

My question was answered by your sidestepping. No where else does the government charge and bail. Thanks for finally obtusely admitting that as your derailing the issue fails. .

Buchholtz - in no way does my lack of effort to do your research for you make your statement correct, furthermore, attaining the same result through slightly different mechanisms still attains the same result. So you'll excuse me if I don't accept your presumption regarding my "admission". Your argument is complete and total "buchholtz", shall we say...

May I suggest that your recent "conversation" has been following to a certain extent a common MO used on these forums i.e

Make statement, or post anything that could be used against the usual targets

If this statement is questioned add further statement (with photo/s and preferably disparaging remarks about photo subject - though this may take the place of the first statement)

Wait for cheerleaders to join in

Post “evidence” dragged up from the depths of time to add “credence” however specious

If original questioner ( OQ ) persists, keep posting until questioner loses interest or has something more meaningul to do. (there will probably be some help here from the cheerleaders)

If OQ still persists or you are in danger of losing the argument, act affronted and take the moral high ground (not always possible but you can pretend)

Turn this “moral stance” back on the OQ

If OQ still persists, further question their “moral stance” or take the OP in a new direction and ask a new question

If OQ still persists (this stage not normally reached as a result of actions above) ignore

(though if this technique is ever used against you keep on demanding an answer until you can finally confidently post ; “So, no answer then (insert: my post/case/stance has been proved correct by your silence/avoidance of answering my question), Thank You”.

Thanks Phiphidon. I was thinking about posting the flow-chart for Buchholtz' logic this morning, but your example hits it on the head. I particularly appreciate the attempt to claim that muddying the waters and thread "derailing" come from the the other side and not from him - which is one of the typical attempts, unrelated to any issue at hand, to move to the moral high ground as you point out above.

There is also the typical logic of "lack of any evidence is proof" which should perhaps be appended to the typical MO above Something along the lines of "insist on OQ posting evidence to counter your original statement. Lack of evidence (or interest) becomes the proof of your statement. If evidence is provided, redefine your statement or outright deny/ignore the provided evidence ...

[SomTumTiger]

Thanks Phiphidon. I was thinking about posting the flow-chart for Buchholtz' logic this morning, but your example hits it on the head. I particularly appreciate the attempt to claim that muddying the waters and thread "derailing" come from the the other side and not from him - which is one of the typical attempts, unrelated to any issue at hand, to move to the moral high ground as you point out above.

There is also the typical logic of "lack of any evidence is proof" which should perhaps be appended to the typical MO above Something along the lines of "insist on OQ posting evidence to counter your original statement. Lack of evidence (or interest) becomes the proof of your statement. If evidence is provided, redefine your statement or outright deny/ignore the provided evidence ...

Whats funny is that you think this MO only applies to one side 5555

[tlansford]

Payback to the terrorist brothers , what a crazy and corrupt government

You have to admit it's funny to read tlansford's lamely attempting to defend it. .

On the 23rd of February 2011 you appeared to be rather put out that the Red shirt leaders had bail, while highlighting the fact their supporters did not.........today you appear to be upset that a solution is found..........

Letting suspects go without any incentive for them to return should they be likely to be found guilty, is not a solution at all. All it is doing is creating a new potentially much bigger problem down the road. An actual and a proper solution would have been to lower the bail sum to something they could afford to pay, but couldn't afford to lose, or, most ideally, to have sped up trials.

"incentive" is not the only resource used to ensure compliance rixalex. Your point is an issue, for sure. But if someone is going to really skip bail, money is not going to stop them. That is why check-ins, tracking devices, restrictions on movement, etc, are all used, as well.

From some of the posts here, it looks like some other people (not you) are also forgetting why bail exists. In English law, innocent until proven guilty applies, and "Therefore a person charged with a crime should not be denied freedom unless there is a good reason.", so that people have a right to bail. In the US, the right to reasonable bail is in the constitution. Bail can be denied based on risk of flight, and in the USA also (now) based on danger to the community.

BTW, I just came across the information that Scotland does not require any money or property to secure bail at all - a get out of jail free card, if you will. Those crazy Scots, eh?

[hanuman1]

Ahh, so are you arguing this because you feel hard done by, because a criminal in your family was required to put up 90,000 baht?

Do the math. Your relative was held a day or so and bail was set at only 90,000.

The 57 detainees were held for over 18+ months and bail was set at an average of 800,000

Seriously, can you not appreciate that 90,000 is a lot easier to raise than 800,000? Because of the concentration of detainees from some regions, it would have wiped out the available 3rd party guarantors.The fact of the matter is that your "girlfriend" was able to quickly raise the money. Had she been unable to do so, she could have made an application to the bail fund. Were you expecting the bail fund to come to her and offer the money?

"A criminal"??????????????????? Do you know anything about what he has supposedly done?????

It's not nice when people accuse others of being criminals before they are considered as such by law, is it?

Happens on this forum nearly every hour of every day.

[whybother]

Ahh, so are you arguing this because you feel hard done by, because a criminal in your family was required to put up 90,000 baht?

Do the math. Your relative was held a day or so and bail was set at only 90,000.

The 57 detainees were held for over 18+ months and bail was set at an average of 800,000

Seriously, can you not appreciate that 90,000 is a lot easier to raise than 800,000? Because of the concentration of detainees from some regions, it would have wiped out the available 3rd party guarantors.The fact of the matter is that your "girlfriend" was able to quickly raise the money. Had she been unable to do so, she could have made an application to the bail fund. Were you expecting the bail fund to come to her and offer the money?

"A criminal"??????????????????? Do you know anything about what he has supposedly done?????

It's not nice when people accuse others of being criminals before they are considered as such by law, is it?

Happens on this forum nearly every hour of every day.

And it's usually GK pointing it out. Double standards? I'd ask for an apology, but wouldn't expect it from him.

[hanuman1]

Ahh, so are you arguing this because you feel hard done by, because a criminal in your family was required to put up 90,000 baht?

Do the math. Your relative was held a day or so and bail was set at only 90,000.

The 57 detainees were held for over 18+ months and bail was set at an average of 800,000

Seriously, can you not appreciate that 90,000 is a lot easier to raise than 800,000? Because of the concentration of detainees from some regions, it would have wiped out the available 3rd party guarantors.The fact of the matter is that your "girlfriend" was able to quickly raise the money. Had she been unable to do so, she could have made an application to the bail fund. Were you expecting the bail fund to come to her and offer the money?

"A criminal"??????????????????? Do you know anything about what he has supposedly done?????

It's not nice when people accuse others of being criminals before they are considered as such by law, is it?

Happens on this forum nearly every hour of every day.

And it's usually GK pointing it out. Double standards? I'd ask for an apology, but wouldn't expect it from him.

No one ever apologizes for it. No double-standard there then....

[rixalex]

"incentive" is not the only resource used to ensure compliance rixalex. Your point is an issue, for sure. But if someone is going to really skip bail, money is not going to stop them. That is why check-ins, tracking devices, restrictions on movement, etc, are all used, as well.

Check ins, tracking devices and restrictions on movement, all aid in keeping tabs on suspects, but none of those resources will be of any help in terms of getting guilty suspects who prefer to go on the run rather than face jail, to court rooms. Bail is the only device that can possibly do that. Doesn't always work of course, but it stands a chance.

From some of the posts here, it looks like some other people (not you) are also forgetting why bail exists. In English law, innocent until proven guilty applies, and "Therefore a person charged with a crime should not be denied freedom unless there is a good reason.", so that people have a right to bail. In the US, the right to reasonable bail is in the constitution. Bail can be denied based on risk of flight, and in the USA also (now) based on danger to the community.

BTW, I just came across the information that Scotland does not require any money or property to secure bail at all - a get out of jail free card, if you will. Those crazy Scots, eh?

All fair points but none of it changes the fact that if the state pays for bail, in my mind, there is no point whatsoever in having bail in the first place. May as well just set these people free and be done with it.

[Buchholz]

BTW, I just came across the information that Scotland does not require any money or property to secure bail at all - a get out of jail free card, if you will. Those crazy Scots, eh?

You're getting a bit closer.

Now just come across information where a country's government acts as bail bondsman for criminals a country's government prosecutors have charged.

.

[tlansford]

BTW, I just came across the information that Scotland does not require any money or property to secure bail at all - a get out of jail free card, if you will. Those crazy Scots, eh?

You're getting a bit closer.

Now just come across information where a country's government acts as bail bondsman for criminals a country's government prosecutors have charged.

.

don't need to get closer, your point has been dealt with already

[daboyz1]

@Tlansford:

In the USA, the process is not identical with Thailand, but the intentions are similar. Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail. Legal defense is provided by the government and bail options vary from state to state, but there is usually a mechanism, more or less effective, to support poor people in posting bail. Clear enough... ?

Sorry, it's not clear, because that's not how it works.

Poor people do receive either a court appointed lawyer, or a public defender based on the rules of the jurisdiction where they are charged and their ability to pay for legal representation. Some jurisdictions have a public defenders office that is paid for by the state. Others have court appointed lawyers that have regular practices in other areas. One of the requirements for them to get certified in these jurisdictions is that they will offer there services as a court appointed lawyer for a reduced fee to indigent clients.

Which would you choose? A lawyer whose full time job it is to defend indigent clients, or a lawyer that makes $250 an hour in his private practice, but then is forced to defend an indigent client for $40 an hour due to his being licensed in that jurisdiction? I would take the former everytime.

Bail is totally different. A bail bondsman is on the hook for the entire amount. Based on the risk of the defendant showing up for court, the bondsman asks for a NON REFUNDABLE percentage. If your bail/bond is 100k USD the bondsman might ask for 5% to 20%. This is non refundable to the defendant.

Just to make it crystal clear. If your bond is 100k and the bondsman asks for 15k, that 15k is GONE. That's how they make a living. If you dont show up for court, the bondsman is on the hook for 100k. That's where people like dog the bounty hunter come in.

Clear now?

As I previously explained, the scenario you claim is not the case for those that are on payment plans. As well, some states do not require the bonding agent to forfeit funds. The use of a bond service is the the contracting out of the obligation to ensure due process.In the USA, if there were no provisions for bonding, the government would be obliged to release impoverished detainees that were languishing in prison solely because of their financial situation.

Payment plans? Do a little research before you post. Magistrates or Judges set bond based on severity of the crime and risk of the defendant skipping court. It's not based on ability to pay the bond.

[tlansford]

"incentive" is not the only resource used to ensure compliance rixalex. Your point is an issue, for sure. But if someone is going to really skip bail, money is not going to stop them. That is why check-ins, tracking devices, restrictions on movement, etc, are all used, as well.

Check ins, tracking devices and restrictions on movement, all aid in keeping tabs on suspects, but none of those resources will be of any help in terms of getting guilty suspects who prefer to go on the run rather than face jail, to court rooms. Bail is the only device that can possibly do that. Doesn't always work of course, but it stands a chance.

From some of the posts here, it looks like some other people (not you) are also forgetting why bail exists. In English law, innocent until proven guilty applies, and "Therefore a person charged with a crime should not be denied freedom unless there is a good reason.", so that people have a right to bail. In the US, the right to reasonable bail is in the constitution. Bail can be denied based on risk of flight, and in the USA also (now) based on danger to the community.

BTW, I just came across the information that Scotland does not require any money or property to secure bail at all - a get out of jail free card, if you will. Those crazy Scots, eh?

All fair points but none of it changes the fact that if the state pays for bail, in my mind, there is no point whatsoever in having bail in the first place. May as well just set these people free and be done with it.

you know, IMO, the controls would be more effective than the money.

And as for jumping bail, that risk is the primary reason to deny bail. If the court feels the risk of fleeing is too high, then bail is denied, period. Not a question of reasonable bail or bail at any level. So the courts are left the option to handle the case like those that concern you.

As for the state paying, that is based on financial need and based on a request from the concerned party. It is not a simple situation, on one hand you don't want to let people out for free (unless you're a Scot), and on the other hand, not having the means to pay for legal costs like layers and bail can / does lead to coercion, which is not the point of justice. Many countries, like Thailand, have a means to enable this.

Here in Thailand, what I think is interesting, is that the Justice Fund mentioned in this article is not only used for bail and other legal fees for the accused, but can also be used for court cases by others, ie victims. I read where the victims of a man crashing his car into a bus stop applied for and were supported in their case against the man in the car with funds from the Justice Fund.

Also interesting is that the justice fund exists since 2006. I wonder what they did, if anything, before that.

[phiphidon]

Thanks Phiphidon. I was thinking about posting the flow-chart for Buchholtz' logic this morning, but your example hits it on the head. I particularly appreciate the attempt to claim that muddying the waters and thread "derailing" come from the the other side and not from him - which is one of the typical attempts, unrelated to any issue at hand, to move to the moral high ground as you point out above.

There is also the typical logic of "lack of any evidence is proof" which should perhaps be appended to the typical MO above Something along the lines of "insist on OQ posting evidence to counter your original statement. Lack of evidence (or interest) becomes the proof of your statement. If evidence is provided, redefine your statement or outright deny/ignore the provided evidence ...

Thank you for your input. I will put the proposed ammendments before the committee and, if approved, will consider a referendum

Edited January 12, 2012 by phiphidon

[tlansford]

@Tlansford:

In the USA, the process is not identical with Thailand, but the intentions are similar. Poor people receive financial support to defend themselves and assistance in posting bail. Legal defense is provided by the government and bail options vary from state to state, but there is usually a mechanism, more or less effective, to support poor people in posting bail. Clear enough... ?

Sorry, it's not clear, because that's not how it works.

Poor people do receive either a court appointed lawyer, or a public defender based on the rules of the jurisdiction where they are charged and their ability to pay for legal representation. Some jurisdictions have a public defenders office that is paid for by the state. Others have court appointed lawyers that have regular practices in other areas. One of the requirements for them to get certified in these jurisdictions is that they will offer there services as a court appointed lawyer for a reduced fee to indigent clients.

Which would you choose? A lawyer whose full time job it is to defend indigent clients, or a lawyer that makes $250 an hour in his private practice, but then is forced to defend an indigent client for $40 an hour due to his being licensed in that jurisdiction? I would take the former everytime.

Bail is totally different. A bail bondsman is on the hook for the entire amount. Based on the risk of the defendant showing up for court, the bondsman asks for a NON REFUNDABLE percentage. If your bail/bond is 100k USD the bondsman might ask for 5% to 20%. This is non refundable to the defendant.

Just to make it crystal clear. If your bond is 100k and the bondsman asks for 15k, that 15k is GONE. That's how they make a living. If you dont show up for court, the bondsman is on the hook for 100k. That's where people like dog the bounty hunter come in.

Clear now?

As I previously explained, the scenario you claim is not the case for those that are on payment plans. As well, some states do not require the bonding agent to forfeit funds. The use of a bond service is the the contracting out of the obligation to ensure due process.In the USA, if there were no provisions for bonding, the government would be obliged to release impoverished detainees that were languishing in prison solely because of their financial situation.

Payment plans? Do a little research before you post. Magistrates or Judges set bond based on severity of the crime and risk of the defendant skipping court. It's not based on ability to pay the bond.

There are many ways that bail levels are set. Risk of fleeing is usually a criteria to deny bail, not the bail level.

Yes, payment plans do exist.

Ability to pay / financial need applies to support for legal costs including bail. You are correct that it is not related to the bail level itself, but I don't think that was what GK was saying...

Concise overview is here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail

[rixalex]

"incentive" is not the only resource used to ensure compliance rixalex. Your point is an issue, for sure. But if someone is going to really skip bail, money is not going to stop them. That is why check-ins, tracking devices, restrictions on movement, etc, are all used, as well.

As an aside, it's interesting to hear the same person who considered the returning of a passport to a convicted on the run criminal as being "no biggie" - or words to that effect, now extolling the virtues of restricting movement on suspects. Yes, different cases, but definite parallels that can be drawn.

[Buchholz]

BTW, I just came across the information that Scotland does not require any money or property to secure bail at all - a get out of jail free card, if you will. Those crazy Scots, eh?

You're getting a bit closer.

Now just come across information where a country's government acts as bail bondsman for criminals a country's government prosecutors have charged.

don't need to get closer, your point has been dealt with already

Which is to say that Thailand's government uniquely provides bail money for those people it charges with crimes.

.