I had iterated before that, “constitutionally, there is no punishment involved with the decision and exercise of granting bail because, at first instance, it is not an entitled right for any accused person to get bail. It begins as a discretion to be exercised by the court (The courts' discretion is constitutional). The conditions set down for bail do not become laws on this simple fact - it only applies to that one individual. Not being a law, the accused cannot be punished for the breach – only the penalty that was agreed upon ought to be the consequence of the breach - not any other judicial punishment. “
Further note the effect of the 2016 Amendment to the Bail Act would free the guarantor of any obligation and resettle the responsibility of bail penalty onto the shoulders of the accused. Parliament, by this law to punish the accused for breach of a bail, settles any mishap onto the released person. What then was/is the purpose for the bail application process?
So, should this Amendment become law, all persons who stood bail for accused persons before the courts are no longer held responsible and liable for the actions of the person released on bail.
The rule of law that militates against this action of double jeopardy is that you cannot punish/penalize twice for the same act: the courts cannot hold the guarantor for bail responsible for the misconduct of the accused, and at the same time, by this Amendment, hold the accused responsible for his own misconduct.
Lastly, as I have also asked, should the bahamas continue to be governed by the lesser of the least from among us?. The philosopher, Socrates, taught his followers that ‘the greatest punishment is where the lesser of the least governs the people’.
John in addition to these wise and instructive comments coming from you: "Punishment must begin when an individual is found guilty. Not a second before. The focus needs to be on speedily trials, and stiffer penalties for those convicted and especially repeat offenders.", there needs to be a underpinning need to rehabilitate persons back into society:
"The law must serve as an end but not be an end in itself."
Bahamian women cannot be expected to born children and the rate we are destroying them..
While I agree with you that Mr. Fred Smith has made significant contribution to the protection of human rights, among other issues, he is not as you said "no one in this county is currently more important to the preservation of our democratic rights than he his".
We all have a role and even your support of Mr. Smith is important, but none of us is "more important". Thank you.
Stislez.. you've made a valid point... what Mr. Gray implies that, we men, rather than exercising self control and discipline of faculty, if a woman should hit, slap or kick a male... we ought to slam the shit out of her.
According to Mr. Gray, this would be the better course than allow yourself to be ridiculed as "slapped up your head by a woman". The only thing about this, the men will be cited for 'violence against women'.
On the point, where is the crisis center now???????????. Or is it only the Member of Parliament for Tall Pines, Mr. Leslie Miller, who is allowed to beat women???
DillyTree and John, I'm cognizant of the escalated and out of control crime situation in The Bahamas. I am in agreement that pro-action is needed; and not superficial action that makes the crime situation worst for us and the future generations. The government ministers, their department administrators are incompetent and unread as to the philosophy of law and the sociological impact their ill conceived legislation have on the rest of society.
There is an underpinning aspect of the law that must be factored in when proposing a law to address a mischief. Jeremy Bentham is most referable on the the point, he's the authority on utilitarianism. The questions arise as to what are the social utility of the law proposed. What is its utility or does it amount to absurdity.
The course they are leading us on is in fact producing more criminals and crimes rather than reducing them: 'hurt people , hurt people!'.
As to living in fear and the criminal having all the rights... I feel your concerns. Mussolini came to power with worse criminal situation than any modern country has had to face. But because we would rather be-devil his legacy, we won't learn from what he did to turn Italy around. for heaven sake, the man got the train to run on time'... sounds simple??? but this was an impossibility before Mussolini came to lead Italy.
The blame for not getting control of the crime has to do with leadership capabilities. We deserve what we chose.
Lastly, as to your preference to see a person remanded as apart from being afforded the freedom of movement, you and many others who feel this way are in for a big shock!!!
The actual effect of the Amendment to the Bail Act frees the guarantor of their obligations, and, resettles the responsibility of bail on the shoulders of the accused. The government by this act to punish the accused for breach of bail conditions has accepted the responsibility for the decision of bail, and, settles any mishap onto the shoulders of the accused.
So effective from the 24th of February, 2016, all persons who stood bail for accused persons before the courts, to date, are no longer personally responsible and liable and cannot be held responsible for the actions of the accused. The Amendment to the Act, in effect, now shoulders the penalty for non-compliance directly onto the shoulders of the accused persons themselves.
The entrenched rule of law that supports what I am saying is the rule against double jeopardy. you cannot punish/penalize twice for the same act. The courts cannot hold the guarantor for bail responsible for the misconduct of the accused, and at the same time, by this Amendment, hold the accused responsible for his own misconduct.
Like the flawed Urban Renewal Program, the only thing that has two heads is a monster, in other words, the Amendment created a legal monstrosity rather than address the scourge of crime in The Bahamas.
DillyTree, constitutionally an accused person, in a functioning democracy, is held to be innocent until proven guilty. And therefore, irrespective of the charges as you noted above, one ought not be simple yanked from the ordinary course of living on an account of an accusation.
A person who have not yet been tried for an offence and proven to be guilty - have not "lost the right to remain [free] in a civilised society".
The accused might be supporting a family that relies on them, be it a father or mother, for support. A professional career or need to keep a job or other obligations may be pending.
You should not create a worst social dilemma out of one situation while trying to address another. Hope this answer help to awaken in you the rationality of the need to exercise the discretion of granting bail for accused persons.
Godson says...
Asiseeit, and saying now through you and others, we have awaken, what next should we do?
On PM may face ‘committal’ over Blackbeard’s Cay
Posted 5 March 2016, 2:02 p.m. Suggest removal
Godson says...
My heartfelt sympathy to the man and his family.
Godson 'Nicodemus' Johnson
On Police criticised for failing to investigate attack on elderly man
Posted 2 March 2016, 4:39 p.m. Suggest removal
Godson says...
http://tribune242.com/users/photos/2016…
http://tribune242.com/users/photos/2016…
On Fred Smith: Jail or fine for violating bail 'completely unconstitutional'
Posted 28 February 2016, 8:07 a.m. Suggest removal
Godson says...
I had iterated before that, “constitutionally, there is no punishment involved with the decision and exercise of granting bail because, at first instance, it is not an entitled right for any accused person to get bail. It begins as a discretion to be exercised by the court (The courts' discretion is constitutional). The conditions set down for bail do not become laws on this simple fact - it only applies to that one individual. Not being a law, the accused cannot be punished for the breach – only the penalty that was agreed upon ought to be the consequence of the breach - not any other judicial punishment. “
Further note the effect of the 2016 Amendment to the Bail Act would free the guarantor of any obligation and resettle the responsibility of bail penalty onto the shoulders of the accused. Parliament, by this law to punish the accused for breach of a bail, settles any mishap onto the released person. What then was/is the purpose for the bail application process?
So, should this Amendment become law, all persons who stood bail for accused persons before the courts are no longer held responsible and liable for the actions of the person released on bail.
The rule of law that militates against this action of double jeopardy is that you cannot punish/penalize twice for the same act: the courts cannot hold the guarantor for bail responsible for the misconduct of the accused, and at the same time, by this Amendment, hold the accused responsible for his own misconduct.
Lastly, as I have also asked, should the bahamas continue to be governed by the lesser of the least from among us?. The philosopher, Socrates, taught his followers that ‘the greatest punishment is where the lesser of the least governs the people’.
Godson 'Nicodemus' Johnson
On Fred Smith: Jail or fine for violating bail 'completely unconstitutional'
Posted 28 February 2016, 7:55 a.m. Suggest removal
Godson says...
John in addition to these wise and instructive comments coming from you: "Punishment must begin when an individual is found guilty. Not a second before. The focus needs to be on speedily trials, and stiffer penalties for those convicted and especially repeat offenders.", there needs to be a underpinning need to rehabilitate persons back into society:
"The law must serve as an end but not be an end in itself."
Bahamian women cannot be expected to born children and the rate we are destroying them..
On Fred Smith: Jail or fine for violating bail 'completely unconstitutional'
Posted 28 February 2016, 7:20 a.m. Suggest removal
Godson says...
While I agree with you that Mr. Fred Smith has made significant contribution to the protection of human rights, among other issues, he is not as you said "no one in this county is currently more important to the preservation of our democratic rights than he his".
We all have a role and even your support of Mr. Smith is important, but none of us is "more important". Thank you.
On Fred Smith: Jail or fine for violating bail 'completely unconstitutional'
Posted 28 February 2016, 7:13 a.m. Suggest removal
Godson says...
Stislez.. you've made a valid point... what Mr. Gray implies that, we men, rather than exercising self control and discipline of faculty, if a woman should hit, slap or kick a male... we ought to slam the shit out of her.
According to Mr. Gray, this would be the better course than allow yourself to be ridiculed as "slapped up your head by a woman". The only thing about this, the men will be cited for 'violence against women'.
On the point, where is the crisis center now???????????. Or is it only the Member of Parliament for Tall Pines, Mr. Leslie Miller, who is allowed to beat women???
Godson 'Nicodemus' Johnson
On Gray invites Rollins to meet him 'in the right place'
Posted 26 February 2016, 9:06 a.m. Suggest removal
Godson says...
DillyTree and John, I'm cognizant of the escalated and out of control crime situation in The Bahamas. I am in agreement that pro-action is needed; and not superficial action that makes the crime situation worst for us and the future generations. The government ministers, their department administrators are incompetent and unread as to the philosophy of law and the sociological impact their ill conceived legislation have on the rest of society.
There is an underpinning aspect of the law that must be factored in when proposing a law to address a mischief. Jeremy Bentham is most referable on the the point, he's the authority on utilitarianism. The questions arise as to what are the social utility of the law proposed. What is its utility or does it amount to absurdity.
The course they are leading us on is in fact producing more criminals and crimes rather than reducing them: 'hurt people , hurt people!'.
As to living in fear and the criminal having all the rights... I feel your concerns. Mussolini came to power with worse criminal situation than any modern country has had to face. But because we would rather be-devil his legacy, we won't learn from what he did to turn Italy around. for heaven sake, the man got the train to run on time'... sounds simple??? but this was an impossibility before Mussolini came to lead Italy.
The blame for not getting control of the crime has to do with leadership capabilities. We deserve what we chose.
Lastly, as to your preference to see a person remanded as apart from being afforded the freedom of movement, you and many others who feel this way are in for a big shock!!!
The actual effect of the Amendment to the Bail Act frees the guarantor of their obligations, and, resettles the responsibility of bail on the shoulders of the accused. The government by this act to punish the accused for breach of bail conditions has accepted the responsibility for the decision of bail, and, settles any mishap onto the shoulders of the accused.
So effective from the 24th of February, 2016, all persons who stood bail for accused persons before the courts, to date, are no longer personally responsible and liable and cannot be held responsible for the actions of the accused. The Amendment to the Act, in effect, now shoulders the penalty for non-compliance directly onto the shoulders of the accused persons themselves.
The entrenched rule of law that supports what I am saying is the rule against double jeopardy. you cannot punish/penalize twice for the same act. The courts cannot hold the guarantor for bail responsible for the misconduct of the accused, and at the same time, by this Amendment, hold the accused responsible for his own misconduct.
Like the flawed Urban Renewal Program, the only thing that has two heads is a monster, in other words, the Amendment created a legal monstrosity rather than address the scourge of crime in The Bahamas.
Godson 'Nicodemus' Johnson.
On Violate bail and you could get five years in prison
Posted 26 February 2016, 8:44 a.m. Suggest removal
Godson says...
DillyTree, constitutionally an accused person, in a functioning democracy, is held to be innocent until proven guilty. And therefore, irrespective of the charges as you noted above, one ought not be simple yanked from the ordinary course of living on an account of an accusation.
A person who have not yet been tried for an offence and proven to be guilty - have not "lost the right to remain [free] in a civilised society".
The accused might be supporting a family that relies on them, be it a father or mother, for support. A professional career or need to keep a job or other obligations may be pending.
You should not create a worst social dilemma out of one situation while trying to address another. Hope this answer help to awaken in you the rationality of the need to exercise the discretion of granting bail for accused persons.
Godson 'Nicodemus' Johnson
On Violate bail and you could get five years in prison
Posted 25 February 2016, 7:09 p.m. Suggest removal
Godson says...
Gray is the perfect example of the PLPs' crime plan...
On Gray invites Rollins to meet him 'in the right place'
Posted 25 February 2016, 5:46 p.m. Suggest removal