State laws denying bail to accused sex offenders are unconstitutional, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
In a split opinion, the majority said it may very well be appropriate to keep individuals who are charged with having sexual contact with minors behind bars until trial. Full Article
Have we heard something like this somewhere before?
“Appellate Judge Andrew Gould, in his dissent, rejected the contention that denial of bail in certain circumstances is unconstitutional.
He said the express purpose of the statute and its companion state constitutional provision “is to protect victims and the community.” That, he said, makes its purpose “regulatory, not punitive.”
I try to stay out of Arizona whenever possible. That “Sheriff Joe Arpaio” of Maricopa County, frightens the heck out of me.
I wouldn’t want to end up in his jail for some technicality, while just passing through
the State of AZ.
Frank
“And Swann said that opportunity for a hearing is a necessary safeguard. Otherwise, he said, a flat denial of bail with no opportunity for a defendant to argue he or she can be safely released, becomes punitive.”
Shouldn’t this same reasoning apply to most restrictions placed en masse on registered citizens? I believe this is the same reasoning at the basis of several of the rulings in our favor in recent residency and presence restriction cases. We need to figure out how to get this into more challenges…