Answer:
a. The purpose of reasonable bail is to equalize justice for all. It should apply to all defeflndants.
b. Yes, if the person represents no danger or flight risk. Defendants should not be released if their freedom presents a risk to property, life and limb of themselves or ANY other, or if they are a danger of flight risk.
c. Yes. Enforcement would be refreshing. A simple solution would be to task a ci Iliad panel in a jury duty style to decide on bails based solely on the facts of the case and elements of the defendant.
“The principles of stare decisis, I think has imposed an obligation on lower courts to be bound by the decisions of higher courts”
= lower courts ( not one in specific)
Answer:
One way we can contribute to keep our city clean is to podcast how dirty and filthy our society is, in that way the goverment will do somethings about it, but since we should keep our own path clean maybe consider cleaning up things you see when you go out.
I hope this helps.
Answer:
The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The decision in Mapp v. Ohio established that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona established that the exclusionary rule applies to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. However, the rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza.
