>Bail isn't trial. There is no implication that an accuastion of petty theft results in mandatory imprisonment.
Don't talk rubbish. It is clear.
> 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,
Obviously the presumption of innocence is an alien concept to you? Bail is based on the principle that a person is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. Unless release on bail represents a real risk of absconding, etc. The California statute can only be based on the opposite presumption, that an accused is guilty unless proven innocent. Any law which sets out to imprison people merely because they have been accused of a crime is contrary to the presumption of innocence principle.
That's the essence of a police state. California is therefor a police state.
>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.
If you don't live in California I suppose it might be more disturbing. But what's the good of a lawyer and the right to a trial if you've already served your sentence before the trial gets started?
Actually, US citizens being kidnapped by the US government is no more disturbing than the Rumsfeld determination that non-US citizens can be kidnapped and held hostage indefinitely.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas