Oxford High shooter’s parents have been in jail 600 days. Is $500K bond excessive?
Oxford High shooter’s parents have been in jail 600 days. Is $500K bond excessive?
The parents of Oxford High school shooter Ethan Crumbley have remained jailed for more than a year and a half, held on bonds some argue are excessive and politically motivated.
If you know you're not going be successful in your case, but still want to make an example out of someone that would be the way... Almost two years in jail so far.
If you read more, you really start to see how messed up it is. They're all at the same jail but have what sounds like no contact with each other kept in isolation.
If you know anything about isolation in prison it's pretty much a new form of torture that is somehow legal. Worse, when the kid was arraigned his parents weren't even allowed to be there. The whole thing is really fucked, but shows how mess up the government is with this sort of thing.
The prosecution has done a great job of poisoning the pool and putting out as much as they can how bad they are as parents, but this all just feels wrong at a fundamental thing. Especially because these two are never going to have a normal life after this.
There's something about the amount of time spent in jail without trial, and something about how they could have just walked right out if they had the money.
And then there's something about how this is how the system is by design - it's not some freak procedural accident. It's incredible that it's allowed to go on like this.
Also remember they are now knows as the parents of that murderer... how many jobs do you think would be interested in them? (Granted before this apparently the dad was doing Door Dash, but the point stands)
Isolation is definitely torture, but it's hardly a new form of it. It's been used to destroy people throughout history. Not to disagree with anything you've written here.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...
Talking about bond levels seems to be asking the wrong question.
Since you didn’t read the article..
While there is a Constitutional right to a speedy trial, the length of time the Crumbleys have spent in jail awaiting resolution of their case has been prolonged by legal challenges and appeals.
“It seems like every other decision is getting challenged, so that slows this process down as well,” said former Wayne County Circuit Judge Vonda Evans, who presided over criminal cases in Detroit for 22 years. “You can’t have it both ways.
“As a retired judge, have I seen people get charged with what they got charged and much less bonds?” Evans said. “Absolutely, but this is a high-profile case ... that really rocked the city.
“The prosecutor said they were trying to flee from the very beginning and I think the greatest fear of any judge is to release somebody on a bond they can meet and they don’t come back.”
The Crumbleys have no significant criminal or violent history, although they are accused of attempting to flee after Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald issued charges on Dec. 3, 2021.
I am not disagreeing with you, but you also have to think, maybe the system is designed in such a way that all trials are made to take up as much time. The prosecutors need to build a case, but it seems it's part of the legal proceeding instead of done before that. That means they can arrest someone that they think do it, and continue to work on the case.
Yes there's multiple legal challenges and appeals but all of those are now required as part of the legal process. Imagine if you're a prosecutor, and the client says he wants a speedy trial, but you know you need an extra two or three weeks, you make an accident that means they have to go to the appeals court. Now you get your two or three weeks.
It's not that straight forward, but the idea of a "Speedy trial" doesn't feel like it exists in moden America because a good lawyer knows that the appeals process may need to happen.
Personal story My daughter was caught "Stoned" at a school dance... The vice principal took her over to the police, (That fucking bitch and we'll see why). The police did a sobriety test, Concluded she was under the influence. Suspended for a week from school for it, arrested, we had to go get her.
So my wife and I didn't know, we saw all those "no one knows what their kids are doing" So we went and got her drug tested for marijuana thinking it was that. That's what she was suspended for. Conclusive proof no, she was not on it. She wasn't drunk, she wasn't high.... Went to the school with that, school upheld their suspension. It took more than a week, and multiple visits up the school chain including the super intendent and the board. Finally they shut the shit down, chastise the school for not repealing the suspension, and removed it from her record. This was two months later. But my daughter was already outed in front of everyone for this, she lost a week from school (honestly I'd say she never really recovered from that, went home school next semester, in the next 2.5 years, graduated with a Associates two weeks before her high school graduations, so proud of here).
The court case though hung over us for 6 months. We had conclusive evidence she was not on Marijuana. But here's the thing, if the state wanted to be a dick they still could have tried her and said "Some substance". We wanted a speedy resolution, 6 months this was on all our minds. Lawyer said it'd be dropped, but you know... until it's dropped we can't relax. Finally case dismissed ultimately, we had to pay 3-7k (Can't remember) to a lawyer (Friend of a friend, thank god we had no idea who to go to). And everything was finally resolved. Lucky to know that lawyer, lucky we had proof, lucky we trusted our daughter (Ok admittedly not fully at first). And that is why that vice principal is a fucking bitch, because she tried to criminalize our daughter and almost ruined her academic career. She still tenses up around police (Which admittedly may be the right thing to do)
"speedy trial"... That shit don't exist, my friend.
Defendants can waive their right to a speedy trial. We don't typically make defendants go to trial when they aren't ready to.
FWIW, a speedy trial is mostly bullshit and negated now through Amendment 14 due to Due Process. There's a lot of jargon when it applies to this shit though but the highlights are below. Most people waive their right to a speedy trial due to evidence collection, finding a jury that's unbiased, and so many other things. Particularly for high profile cases.
Length of delay. The Court did not explicitly rule that any absolute time limit applies. However, it gave the example that the delay for "ordinary street crime is considerably less than for a serious, complex conspiracy charge."
Reason for the delay. The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations (e.g., change of venue).
Time and manner in which the defendant has asserted his right. If a defendant agrees to the delay when it works to his own benefit, he cannot later claim he has been unduly delayed.
Degree of prejudice to the defendant which the delay has caused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/when-the-right-to-a-speedy-trial-applies
Ain’t that the damned truth.
The Bail Bond system is unconstitutional by its very nature and should be revoked.
While the couple did initially evade arrest, which is why their bail reduction requests have been denied, the length of time behind bars has left them without a home and without jobs, effectively destroying what was left of their lives after their son's actions. Even if proven innocent, the cost for them is so extreme as to be a de-facto punishment for arrest dealt out by the judicial system.
While I have no sympathy for them if they did provide the weapon to their son, I can still recognize the injustice being done to them. Sadly, it's a common one - our jails are full of people awaiting trial for far longer than what could be considered "quick or speedy". It's one of the reasons many public defenders suggest pleading guilty to poorer clients regardless of the case - they'll actually get out faster if they don't have to wait for a jury trial.
It recently had been in CA
The exception being people who they don’t think will show up in court. These people would definitely fall in that category.
Lifeprotip #1:
If you don't want an extremely high bail, then don't be a fugitive.
Lifeprotip #2:
If you don't want to wait 600 days for your trial, then don't file endless appeals after every pretrial hearing.
Thank you.
Yes the US criminal justice system is fucked.
But this is not some poor schmucks getting shafted by the Gov just because.
They are both pulling every trick they can to stall this.
Cause giving guns to children who then shoot places up is just an expression of muh freedums!
It is that way, but it shouldn't be that way. Bail unfairly targets the poor. Filing appeals should be standard procedure when you're deciding whether or not someone has to spend years in a prison.
Aren’t they in CA? CA cash bail programs recently.
Guess these two fall into the exception part. Where no one is sure they will show up in court.
Some places have done away with bail on the basis that it targets the poor, like NJ, IL and the UK. But eliminating bail does not mean eliminating all pretrial detention. This couple would be in pretrial detention even in states without ball, because their own actions made them a flight risk.
And appeals are meant to be used when you think the judge made a legal error, not when you simply don't agree with the law. If you can't acknowledge that a correctly applied law may be used against you, then your trial will take longer than most.
700? Either try them or release them. It’s innocent until proven guilty. This is just stupid to hold anyone for 700 days without a trial
Where do you see 700?
I can't believe it's 800!