Durham Double Standard?: Teen charged in MURDER gets $50,000 bond, While Duke Rape Players Set at $400,000

Rick, you totally missed the point. Who would you rather keep in jail more, a murderer or a suspected rapist? Which is more dangerous to society?

It's not really about keeping them in jail, it's about keeping them from fleeing once they're out.

That's right, and is based on their ability to pay. As Rick Howard said, the likelihood of a poverty-stricken teenager may be less likely to raise $50,000 than a Duke student's ability to raise $400,000. The judge did set the bond at twice the level the kid's lawyer requested. Not to mention that politics and media attention always play into the bond levels too, every where, not just Durham.

Who would you rather keep in jail more, a murderer or a suspected rapist?

That's an easy question... both of them!!

But as Kris Richardson said, bonds are to keep people from fleeing before their trial.

That's right, and is based on their ability to pay.

It's against the Constitution to set bond/bail based on the suspect's ability to pay.

Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So yeah... where does it say it's illegal to set bail based on the suspect's pay?

Katyggls, what part of

while balancing the needs of the community to insure that that defendant returns for his (in this case) trial.

doesn't say

Actually, bail is also decided based on how great a flight risk the defendant is.

?

@ katyggls, the fact of the matter is that murder carries the death penalty and rape doesn't precisely because our society has determined murder to be the ultimate crime. This is not to say that rape is not an atrocious crime. But rapists don't even get life in prison unless they are repeat offenders. No, I've never been raped and I'd hate to be, but If given the choice I think I'd rather be raped than murdered. That's just me.

Yeah. Our society. Most of the laws about rape and the penalties for it are decades old, meaning that whatever male lawmakers were in charge at the time decided just how bad it was to get raped. I also love the double standard in this case. We're supposed to presume the defendants are "innocent until proven guilty", but I notice nobody on here is willing to presume that the victim is telling the truth until it's proven that she's not.

Because the burden of proof lies with her, that is how our justice system works. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to prove the defendent's guilt. The defendent doesn't have to prove his innocence. That is how the justice system works.

why is everyone assuming thes kids come from rich families? because they go to duke?

In these cases, I do not think that the differing bail amounts are evidence of a double standard.

Bail is defined as a "Security, usually a sum of money, exchanged for the release of an arrested person as a guarantee of that person's appearance for trial" (Wikipedia). In these two cases, the amount of security needed to gain this assurance are much different.

I think that we would all agree that a given sum is relative to that person's socio-economic status. By comparing the average socio-economic level of the durham community verses the s-e level of the two duke students (and I am not basing this on the fact that they are duke students), one could say that a $50,000 bond to an average durham family is a lot like $400,000.

Therefore, the amount of bail in both of these cases is consistant with the purpose of bail, to assure that the individual appears for the trial. In regards to the serverity of the crime, I believe that the judge was right to set the bail amount at a higher level and to place conditions on the boys' release in the homicide case.

Woops! Reverse the quotes. Sorry!

Well I said that because you seem to look to the goverment to solve all of society's ills. That is usually liberal ideology, certainly not conservative.

I don't know Phaedrus, I kinda agree with his comment about the government causing a low standard of living and I consider myself a moderate conservative.

As I see it the welfare state led many people to low standards of living thus it might be the governments fault they are in the situation, especially since welfare was scaled back somewhat recently.

In this woman's particular case however she sounds like she wasn't in that particular trap and had done well to educate and employ herself otherwise. However she probably (correctly) thought she could make a large amount of easy money being a stripper.

I see this along the lines of a truck driver. They have risks driving around, they are paid to drive around and thus assume those risks. If somebody runs a light and hits one that certainly isn't their fault and they didn't ask for it however it still is a risk that they should have known up front.

Well I can agree with that assessment KyleN. As far as trucking, I'm going to truck driving school myself and I wholeheartedly agree about assuming risks.