Post by NoBody
Any time a person is arrested for any offense, they run the risk of
being held without bail. No one cares if parents are separated from
their children when the parent drives drunk.
You can't be held indefinitely without a hearing. As soon as you're arrested you
are arraigned, and the arraignment must be within a time specified by law,
usually one to three days. At that time a judge will decide if there's a reason
to continue, set bail or decide the flight risk is too large, and schedule the
next hearing unless the defendant waives a speedy trial. I don't know the actual
time limit, but if arraignment or trial cannot be scheduled within the limit,
the person is freed.
The state only takes custody of a child when both parents are arrested, which is
rare. The child is transferred to a relative whenever possible, as soon as
possible. Continued custody of child is considerred a bad alternative and only
chosen as the least bad alternative.
OJ Simpson's murder trial was such a trainwreck for LAC because they expected
him to waive speedy trial, and he didn't. They had to release him or go to trial
without completing their preparations.
In violation of the constitution you want to hold alleged illegal immigrants
indefinitely without bail, you want them imprisonned for a civil matter, you
don't want to give them all their rights in a criminal trial, and you don't want
the children transferred to relatives.
Post by NoBody Post by Siri Cruise
You cannot hold a person indefinitely no matter what the excuse.
Show us that any immigrant has been held indefinitely. Perhaps the
In the past tense, no one is held for an indefinite time; they are held for N
days. Indefinitely refers to the present tense: will they be held another 10
days, 100 days, 1000 days? If you cannot give answer M, with release after M
days, yes, they are currently being held indefinitely. The legislature decides
M, the maximum time they can be held, subject to judicial review. The exceptions
are POWs which can be held until the end of war, and people convicted of
felonies for which the legislature allows indefinite imprisonment.
Post by NoBody
democrats should put up a bill to provide more capacity for hearings
if they are so concerned.
The Congress, not the minority party, is responsible for authorising and funding
courts to meet the Constitution's requirements. The refusal of a legislature to
fund this is not an excuse. That's why federal courts intervened and orderred
California to release prisonners from overcrowded due to underfunding prisons.
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed