I was just reading that Jim Davidson has been released on bail.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20889817
And it got me thinking about something I've often thought - WTF is bail all about? Why does bail exist, and how is it morally justifiable?
It says on Wiki the following about bail:
Traditionally, bail is some form of property deposited or pledged to a court to persuade it to release a suspect from jail, on the understanding that the suspect will return for trial or forfeit the bail (and possibly be brought up on charges of the crime of failure to appear). In some cases bail money may be returned at the end of the trial, if all court appearances are made, regardless of whether the person is found guilty or not guilty of the crime accused. If a bondsman is used and a surety bond has been obtained, the fee for that bond is the fee for the insurance policy purchased and is not refundable.
In some countries granting bail is common. Even in such countries, however, bail may not be offered by some courts under some circumstances; for instance, if the accused is considered likely not to appear for trial regardless of bail. Legislatures may also set out certain crimes to be not bailable, such as capital crimes.
We all know that capital rules the roost, but how can it be fair for one person to be released from prison because they're able to stump up the money, and someone else is confined to prison? I just find it ridiculous. Regardless of whether he's guilty or innocent, Jim Davidson could now theoretically flea the country and attempt to seek political asylum somewhere. This is essentially what Bobby Fischer did (rightly so). But if he was skint, and his phenomenally low humour was (rightly again) not liked by anyone, then he couldn't possibly go out on bail.
I just find it ridiculous, can anyone explain what the point of it is? I'm particularly looking in Cantata's direction seeing as she knows the law.
