Pretrial detention is used when the defendant is reasonably suspected to be a threat to themselves or to the community, if they are allowed to go free pending trial. It is not supposed to be a punishment for egregious or even obscene acts.
Yes, and it is entirely reasonable to think that a woman who had detained a grown man for twenty years while starving him practically to death, would do that to someone else. What's your reasoning to think she wouldn't? Because she hasn't? She hasn't needed to, she had someone locked away already.
I see no reason to suspect that this woman is likely to find someone else to lock away for years, while she waits for her trial date.
Because she can't lock another person away "for years", she doesn't have that kind of time. That being said, locking someone away for "years" is not the only way to be a threat to the community, as you stated. The victim was "part of the community" and deserves protection. Ankle monitors aren't intrusive. It isn't some ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ massive inconvenience or even invasive to one's day to day life. Wear pants and most people won't even know but she'll be tracked everywhere she goes.
Nor that she is going to go on a habitual crime spree, or anything else that would warrant further restricting her freedom pending trial.
Why is "habitual crime spree" the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ qualifier? What if she finds this man and kills him for getting her caught?
I said inane, not insane but whatever.
What's insane is wanting to impose punishment on her before the trial even begins.
Monitoring isn't a punishment and people are detained, held without bail, etc. all of the time. Especially when they commit heinous crimes against another person. Like rape, murder, physical assault, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. Those situations result in people being held all of the time. Are you equally against those "punishments" being imposed before the trial begins? It wouldn't shock me if you were, but only because you say ridiculous ◊◊◊◊ just to continue an argument.
That's not how our system is supposed to work.
That's
exactly how our system is supposed to work. Protecting the victim and the individual who is suspected of committing a crime loses rights and freedoms. I've personally experienced and understand it.
That's not how I want it to work. I'm surprised that you do want it to work this way.
I can't imagine why you're surprised, but I also genuinely don't care.
It doesn't have any impact on due process.
I know, that's why I said it in direct contrast to you bitching about due process. I planned it that way.
Rather, due process has an impact on what sanctions the state can justifiably impose on her, before she has had her day in court, and been found guilty according to the rule of law.
Yet it happens, justifiably, all of the time.
It's up to you to explain why the state should restrict her freedom before she's been found guilty. Do you think she's a flight risk? That's what the bond is for.
I think her callous approach to human life, her decades of torturing another human, her obvious desire to continue to do so and her apparent lack of remorse cause her to be a danger to society. I, also, think she should have had to turn over her passport, if she had one.
I don't think that's sufficient reason for the state to restrict her freedom before finding her guilty.
Cool, I disagree.
I'm sure a no contact order is part of her bond conditions.
Yeah, and we know she's a stickler for the law. Undoubtedly. That's why she kept a grown man locked away and starved him for 20 years.
I'm sure he's in a safe place, that would turn her away and report her to the court, if she tried to get in.
You seem to be sure of a lot of things. Yet there are thousands of cases of victims being assaulted by the person they accused, with countless killed over the years.
There's the oversight you're looking for. House arrest is not necessary here. Tethering is not necessary here. The state removing her freedom before she's been found guilty is not justice for this man. It's not justice for anyone.
I know you know better than this and I'm just not going to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bother. If you're too dense to be able to see why keeping her locked away or monitored is for the benefit of the community, then I can't help you. You're also saying "house arrest isn't necessary" based on a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ assumption you're making about where this man is located. It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid, and I refuse to engage further. Make up whatever half-assed, unsupported, ridiculous rationalization you want. Maybe I'll read it, but your legal knowledge is on par with many sheep dogs I've met over the years.
