>
>One was an outstanding warrant for petty theft with a prior
>conviction, an offense that does not allow for bail under California
>law.
>
>"Does not allow for bail"? What does this imply, that merely being accused
>of petty theft in California results in mandatory imprisonment? Why are
>people worrying about whether Cuba is a police state, sounds like you might
>have problems a bit closer to home if the cops can imprison people without
>trial in California?
>
>Bill Bartlett
>Bracknell Tas
Bail isn't trial. There is no implication that an accuastion of petty theft results in mandatory imprisonment. I don't know the statute, but if it is described correctly, it says that if you accused os petty theft in that state, and have a prior, you can't be released on bail pending your trial. Bail in general is not a right, although if it is available it can't be unreasonably high.
A more disturbing police state tendency--the real thing--is the Rumsfeld determination that US citizens can be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism without being charged, tried, or given access to an attorney. A federal district (trial) court (without precedential force) ruling I heard about today--I haven't read it yet--apparently said that some or all of this is OK. This was by the chief judge of the Southern District of NY (in Manhattan), a very influential court. ANother SDNY court came out the other way. jks
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com