How American Commercial Bail Developed Differently from Other Common Law Countries
| Autor: | F. E. Devine |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 1994 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice. 18:265-276 |
| ISSN: | 2157-6475 0192-4036 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/01924036.1994.9689041 |
| Popis: | Outside the United States those countries sharing the common law tradition are pervasively hostile to commercialization of the bail process, whereas in the United States it is the typical approach. In some jurisdictions payment for bail is a crime; in others it is simply obstructed by various civil legal disabilities. How the American branch of the common law heritage came to deviate so strikingly from the rest on the matter of commercial bail is the topic of this article. Beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century, courts principally in Ireland, England, and India began to act against payment to bail sureties on the concept that any indemnification of them—even partial—undermined their reliability. Irish courts took the approach that indemnified potential sureties were unreliable and should be rejected by courts. Where all potential sureties were indemnified, bail should be denied. In England courts declared agreements to indemnify sureties illegal contracts contrary to public policy, which w... |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|