Last Days of Bail John V

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 58 | Issue 4 Article 9 1968 Last Days of Bail John V. Ryan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation John V. Ryan, Last Days of Bail, 58 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 542 (1967) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. JOHN V. RYAN Vol. 58 held inadmissible, stopping and questioning can his name and reputation are blemished by a still be constitutional and useful. Questioning police record.v- may prove that the suspect should be arrested In sum, it is obvious that stop and frisk statutes when the suspect's answers are obviously false are both necessary and beneficial-to the police-- or when he admits that he has committed or is to the courts-and to the individual citizen who about to commit a crime. Questioning at the time is entitled to the protection of his life and property of the stop allows an innocent suspect to tell his which can only be guaranteed by aggressive and story before he is booked. Thus questioning per- efficient police procedures. mits the innocent suspect to clear himself before 1178 HAu~v. L. REv. 473, 477 (1964). THE LAST DAYS OF BAIL JOHN V. RYAN The modem system of granting a person accused surety. As a result, the commercial bail bondsman of a crime his freedom based upon his ability to arose to replace the private surety in the American produce bail, security for his appearance at trial, system of pretrial release. The bondsman, who is developed in England.' Originally, the sheriff still a part of the American bail scheme, demands a had the discretionary authority to release the premium from the accused; in return he will put accused to the custody of a third party. Probably up the security necessary to free the man. Since the the sheriff, who was personally responsible for his bondsman makes his living by being a professional prisoners, initiated the bail system to relieve surety, the bases upon which he decides whether or himself of this burden. If the defendant failed to not he will put up bail for a particular defendant appear at trial, the third party was subjected to are commercial and not personal. If he feels a the punishment due the accused. 3 As time went on, prisoner might not appear at trial, he will either the third party was allowed to promise that he hedge against the possible forfeiture by demanding would forfeit a stated amount of personal or real collateral or refuse to make his service available to property, rather than his freedom, if the defendant the prisoner. 6 Although the bail system in the did not appear at his trial. Thus, the bail system of United States has evolved into a commercial pretrial release evolved from a hostage arrange- bondsman system, the underlying policy of bail ment into a surety relationship.4 Soon thereafter, has remained the same-one arrested and accused the courts usurped the sheriff's discretionary of a crime may obtain his release pending trial if he power to allow an alleged criminal his freedom can adequately assure the court that he will appear pending trial. With this innovation the bail system at the trial7 in England reached the stage of evolution at which Thus, history indicates that the basic philosophy we find it today.5 underlying the monetary bail system in the United Because of the broad frontier and mobile popu- States was imported from England. There is some lation of the United States, the private surety dispute as to what place the bail system was given device was not feasible. The defendant was often in the hierarchy of American jurisprudence. Some a new arrival in the locale with no acquaintances in scholars feel that the United States Constitution the area who were willing to risk becoming his gives a right to bails This point has never been authoritatively decided. The right to bail, however, SFREED & WALD, BAIL IN THE UNITED STATES 1 (1964). 6 Note, Preventive Detention Before Trial, 79 HAv. 2 Note, Bail: An Ancient Practice Reexamined, 70 L. R-v. 1490 (1966); Comment, The Administration Of YALE L. J. 966 (1961). Bail and PretrialFreedom In Texas, 43 TEXAs L. Rv. 3 2 PoLLocK & MAITLAND, HISTORY OF ENGLISH 357-58 (1965). LAW 585-90 (3d ed. 1899). 7 Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4-5, 8 (1952). 4 GoLDARB, RANsom 22 (1965). The change was $ Professor Caleb Foote, in an exhaustive review of formalized in 1275 by the Statute of Westminster. the legislative history of the Eighth Amendment, con- Note, supra cluded that the only reason a right to bail was not ex- 5 n. 2 at 966. OrXiELD, CRIlNAL PRocEDuRE Fpom ARREST pressly given was due to a drafting error. Foote, The To TRIAL 104 (1947); PARY, THE LAW AN- 'iHE Coming Constitutional Crisis In Bail: I, 113 U. PA. L. POOR 228-29 (1914). REv. 959-99 (1965). 19671 THE LAST DAYS OF BAIL in non-capital cases is a federal statutory right. 9 A pretrial release system based upon the above Most states, in constitutional or statutory form, premises would free the great majority of those have a similar provision.10 The United States who are arrested. It would detain only those who Constitution only mentions bail in the Eighth could not adequately assure the court that they Amendment, which prohibits excessive bail." But would not flee to escape being tried. This is sup- whether this prohibition applies to the states is a posedly the policy underlying our present bail question that has never been decided by the system, yet in practice, bail affects the release of Supreme Court.'2 One reason that the Court has only a small portion of those who might safely be never been called upon to answer the question is allowed pretrial freedom.16 Whether or not one that most states, in their constitution or statutory agrees that a pretrial release system is mandatory, law, have a similar provision prohibiting excessive there should be little opposition to the proposition bail.13 that some form of pretrial release is advisable. By Despite the question of constitutional right, bail freeing most of those arrested, a vast amount of is a generally accepted procedure. Some theoreti- custodial expense could be saved. Pretrial release cians feel that some form of pretrial release is also makes the administration of criminal justice mandatory in our present day legal system. They more palatable to the innocent accused. Indirectly, base their argument, in part, upon the assumption pretrial release lowers the expenses of certain wel- that the presumption of innocence is more than an fare agencies. An important consideration is that evidentiary trial rule, and attaches to an alleged it seems fair not to subject one to incarceration if criminal immediately upon his arrest."4 The other he has not been tried and convicted of his crime. basis utilized by this school of thought to justify Lastly, if there were no pretrial release, and the its position is that the defendant should be un- mere allegation that a person had committed a hampered in the preparation of his defense. Incar- crime would put him in jail, the abuse that would ceration, they say, unduly restricts the accused in flow from such a procedure could be enormous 1 the preparation of his defense." indeed.' It has been suggested that the bail system does 9FED. R. Czmt. PRoc. 46; Carlson v. Landon, 342 not fulfill its policy of releasing all who can ade- U.S. 524 (1952); Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1952). Recently, the Bail Reform Act of 1966 has given a right quately assure the court that they will appear at to pretrial release in all non-capital cases unless no their trials. This is a harsh indictment of our bail conditional release can reasonably assure appearance. system, but it is true. The reasons for the failure 18. U.S.C. § 3146 (a), (b). 10For a list of the various state provisions see Note, of bail to live up to its underlying policy are many. supra n. 2 at 977. For one, the amount of bail one must pay to obtain I U.S. CONST. AMND. VIII. his release is generally set solely by the nature of "Also, some lower courts recently have assumed that 8 the Eighth Amendment has been incorporated in the the offense.1 The court has a standard rate for Fourteenth. E.g., Mastrian v. Hedman, 326 F.2d 708, each classification of offense which it applies, in Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 965 (1963). 711 (8th the amount at which bail 1 Note, A Study Of The Administration Of Bail It most cases, to determine New York City, 106 U. PA. L. REv. 696 (1958). (here- is to be set. Bail so set is said not to be excessive, after called N.Y. Bail Study). " REPoRT Or THE U.S. Anoptxvy GxuutAn's Com=rrFx ON PovTY AND Tim ADmSnsTRATiON f) he changes his plea to guilty to obtain a speedy OF CRhIINAL JUsTIcE 58 (1963) (hereafter called disposition of his case. Arr'y GEN. REP.). FREED & WAr, supra n. 1 at 38; McCarthy and Wahl, "sRecent empirical studies have revealed evidence, The District of Columbia Bail Project, 53 GEo.

Load more