The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a US District Court
ruling that New Jersey’s new bail system, which does away with most cash bail,
is constitutional.
The law was challenged by Brittan Holland, who was arrested
for aggravated assault last year. He alleged that the new system created by
the New Jersey Criminal Justice Reform Act was
unconstitutional because it violated the Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment,
and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the US Constitution.
The opinion, written by Judge Thomas L. Ambro noted that:
We find no right to these forms of monetary bail in the
Eighth Amendment’s proscription of excessive bail nor in the Fourteenth
Amendment’s substantive and procedural due process components. We also reject
Holland’s “less intrusive means” theory of a Fourth Amendment violation, and so
we hold he has not made a sufficient showing of a violation of that
constitutional amendment. Without a constitutional right violated, and with
reconsideration of current release conditions an option if circumstances
suggest and a request made, irreparable harm does not exist.
The courts ruling comes in the middle of a controversy
surrounding the cash bail system. This system, used in many states, was criticized [JURIST report] by the UN Special
Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights for criminalizing those who do
not have the funds to pay monetary bail. In April, the American Civil Liberties
Union sued [JURIST report] a Texas county after it says the
county jailed many defendants for being unable to afford the bail without
a “meaningful hearing.”
To read more CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment