Guilty until proven innocent! Where's my pitchfork!
Benjamin Mendy charged with eight counts of rape against five women | Released on Bail
- Thread starter TheReligion
- Start date
- Status
House arrest probably, with an ankle detector
Everyone should get bail unless they literally cannot be trusted outdoors for several reasons and there is no feasible way of keeping them in check outside.
If he agrees to being kept inside his house except on his way to and from court/hospital, then he should be granted bail (even though he is an idiot). That's how it should be for every person charged with (and not yet convicted) of a crime.
The article does mention more stringent bail conditions, to be fair.
If they cannot guarantee that he will not come into contact with another person and sexually assault them then he shouldn’t be bailed imo.
I don’t believe an ankle bracelet can guarantee that.
Plus the fecker can also do a runner, and that little bracelet won't be worth the piss. Guilty or not, Any suspected Nonce should not be given bail.
i don’t get all the fuss. the police probably asked him if he was going to rape anyone again and he said no.
What exactly is bail?
It feels like if you are famous then you end up getting arrested but always on bail.
Hardly the "normal" people get it as much do they?
It feels like if you are famous then you end up getting arrested but always on bail.
Hardly the "normal" people get it as much do they?
Prisons are pretty full, I think most people get bail and eventually tagged unless they think you might do it again.
Everyone who has been accused of a crime is entitled the right to bail until their court hearing, except in the extreme circumstances. Generally speaking it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove why a person shouldn't be. In Mendy's case he was refused bail three(?) times - for pretty justified reasons - before somehow being allowed now.
It sends a signal in seconds of a perimeter breach and then there's a massive manhunt. If I'm being chased by every cop in town the last thing I'm trying to do is pull attention to myself by jumping on a woman while in flight.
There are more stringent conditions possible (armed guard at the defendant's expense for example), but the principle remains clear: someone's liberty should not be taken away before conviction unless the very highest of standards has been met by the government. That should be applicable to both rich and poor. And it's a shame that a different standard gets applied to poor people, but the solution is not to violate everyone's rights in the interest of being "fair" to everyone.
What a big “feck you” to the victims.
First 3 times
Mendy the idiot: "can I be released on bail and I'll live my life as needed and see whoever I want?"
Judge: no you idiot, you stay in jail
Fourth time
Mendy the idiot: "ok I'll agree to house arrest, no visitors, if I step out for a cig it's back to jail I go"
Judge: alright then, go, you massive idiot
Possible scenario
Prisons are full
The trial date has been moved from January to June and the case is going to trial as He has pleaded not guilty
Hopefully if he is guilty he would get the full sentence
The trial date has been moved from January to June and the case is going to trial as He has pleaded not guilty
Hopefully if he is guilty he would get the full sentence
On the bolded though, there's no way you can know what's going through this guys head. Especially if he thinks he's going to spend most of his adult life in prison, perversely he might take it as his last chance to commit another crime like that before being locked up for god knows how long. There's just no way of knowing and innocent people shouldn't be risked.
I don't care if he's rich or poor. There's tonnes of examples of repeat offenders doing something extreme when bailed the world over and were talking about 7 counts of rape against four different women. Would you feel comfortable signing off on his bail? I know I wouldn't.
You know they can be removed and left behind.
In the UK bail is a condition of release from custody before a trial. The government provides a good summary here: https://www.gov.uk/charged-crime/bail
In the US bail is usually a bail bond, paid in the form of money or property and refunded when you appear for court. Famous and or wealthy people usually have more means to meet bail conditions in the US which may be why it seems they are treated more favourably by the courts, along with the more visible coverage these people get versus your average joe.
What changed? He's been in custody within a maximum security facility for many months now. Why is he out on bail?
But what if he’s innocent!? It’s important to remember that that’s a possibility.
I know it’s an unpopular point - and I’m not completely comfortable with it - but what if he (or anyone in such situation) is innocent, should they just be banged up UNTIL proven innocent?
It’s really difficult to navigate logically.
How reliable are they? Is there not a risk of him trying to take it off? I assume someone of his wealth has more options to get it off
Bro, do you think law enforcement would use ankle detectors if they could simply be taken off without anybody noticing?
Definitely not, but, as allegedly happened in this case, if they breach previous bail conditions and go on and possibly offend again then tough luck, you had a chance at bail and you blew it
If for example the reason of him being in custody was risk of collusion then he cannot be held further from the point prosecutors have gathered all the evidence.
well at some point you have to prove something to keep someone in jail right
I’m guessing he has some decent lawyers and they managed to make a case that he’s been inside for too long before a trial
He broke his previous bail conditions so this seems bizarre. He allegedly re-offended while on bail for the first charge.
The fact that one of the alleged re-offences apparently happened at his home should show that house arrest is a barrier to feck all for someone like this.
Does City have to let him exercise with the other players now?
Surely with that many allegations he poses an ongoing threat to society?
I also see that his trial has been pushed back from January until June, why?
I also see that his trial has been pushed back from January until June, why?
Maybe he is really really sorry and pinky promised to be good this time?
The PL season ends in May.
Aye. I saw it in the thread, trial's been delayed by half a year. And since he's not an incredibly important journalist exposing corrupt power, he is out on bail.
Surely he won’t be allowed to play?
Everyone I'm not an ankle bracelet salesman, they can possibly be shitty, who knows
All I am saying, is that even for idiots like Mendy, who are idiotic enough to violate bail conditions, two things remain applicable
1. Absent of a conviction for the serious crimes he is charged with, he retains the right to (apply for) bail at all times
2. His risk profile (based on the alleged crime, prior history) determines the level of guarantees/surety he will need to meet, to assure the judge that he is not a flight risk or a threat to the public. Once that level of surety is met by the defendant, there is no legitimate reason for the government to hold him, until he is convicted.
So to point 2. He has allegedly committed another offense while out on bail (the judge will review this evidence and hear rebuttals from the defense so it may not be treated as an absolute that the offense was committed). That does not give the government the arbitrary right to detain him indefinitely before trial. All that does is raise the level of surety he will have to meet. It can be more money. It can be regular check-ins and drug/alcohol tests. It can be a security guard posted outside his door/under his bed at all times. His passport being seized (if it hasn't been already) Whatever it is, if the judge is then satisfied that the increased level of measures is reasonably sufficient to prevent Mendy running for the border (or another victim, allegedly), then holding him past that point is detaining someone who is possibly innocent of all the charges levied at him, with no added benefit. Which is a horrible thing.
Ignoring the idiot who this thread about, the last thing you want happening, is a government having the power to detain someone indefinitely without the highest standards met. Someone like El Chapo for example, who had broken out of prisons before (twice), and has all the resources available to him to hire a private boat-jet off the coast of Brooklyn... he should probably be locked up until trial (and under the most pleasant of circumstances). But again, as the government, you have to make that case, and it's an exceedingly hard case to make. And it should be, that's how precious personal liberty is.
Well argued points, can't disagree with any of that
Isn't that the standard? I don't think he's being treated differently. His case is going to trial they can't keep him in prison till he's proven guilty.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-60216445
Appeared in court today to face a new allegation of attempted rape. Also set the date of July 25th for his trial
Appeared in court today to face a new allegation of attempted rape. Also set the date of July 25th for his trial
well they could!
Forgive me if this has already been asked but is there a reason why we're allowed to talk about this case and not about our own player who shall not be named? Is it due to one's been charged and one hasn't?
I'm asking myself the same question. This threat should be locked too.
Investigation is ongoing so any discourse/commentary could affect that, and get the forum into hot water.
Pretty much. This thread has been locked at stages too.
Tell that to Tsarnaev..
- Status