0
The Bail Reform Act of 1984 replaced an act by the same name that was originally passed in 1964. The updated version of the law closed loopholes that were left open in the 1964 law. It allows for criminals to be detained if they are deemed to be violent and a threat to the community. If the court denies the defendant bail they must issue a written report as to why with facts.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What federal legislation allows judges to deny bail to persons who are thought to be dangerous?
1984 Federal Bail Reform Act
The Pendleton Reform Act attempted to reform?
civil service
Which act was aimed at sanitation reform?
The Public Health act
Was the Wagner Act in 1935 part of Franklin Roosevelt's recovery or reform legislation?
reform
Who was the president when welfare and medicaid reform act was enacted?
No
What federal legislation allows judges to deny bail to persons who are thought to be dangerous?
1984 Federal Bail Reform Act
What federal legislation allows federal judges to deny bail to persons who are thought to be dangerous?
1984 Federal Bail Reform Act
What has the author Deirdre Golash written?
Deirdre Golash has written: 'The Bail Reform Act of 1984' -- subject(s): Bail, Pre-trial release
This led to the Bail Reform Act of 1966 to establish guidelines on appropriate bail amounts and alternatives to detention for those unable to afford bail the act was a reminder that the law favors?
The law favors release if the background of the defendant is such that it is deemed likely that they will appear for their next court hearing.
How much is the bail for act of lasciviousness?
bail for act lasciviousness
Sentencing Reform Act 1984 the Guidelines?
See below link from which you can conduct your own research:
In 1984 as a part of the comprehensive crime control act congress enacted legislation titled insanity defense reform act of 1984 under this act what happened?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense
What study tested the effectiveness of the release-on-recognizance alternative Manhattan bail project New Haven reform study bail reform study or Philadelphia freedom project?
The study that tested the effectiveness of the release-on-recognizance alternative was the Manhattan Bail Project, which took place in New York City. This project was one of the first to evaluate the impact of bail reform on pretrial release rates and court appearances.
Which US Supreme Court case addressed the right to post bail?
A number of US Supreme Court cases have addressed the right to post bail under various circumstances. Perhaps the best known is United States v. Salerno, 481 US 739 (1987), challenging the federal Bail Reform Act of 1984 on the grounds that it violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment Due Process rights and imposed punishment under the Eighth Amendment Excessive Bail Clause.In Salerno, the Boss and one of the Captains of the Genovese organized crime family were arrested on 29 counts of racketeering, including conspiracy to commit murder, under the US RICO statutes. The District Court ordered the two men held without bail under the provisions of the Bail Reform Act of 1984, but the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the lower court ruling, holding the decision violated substantive due process because it unreasonably interfered with the liberty rights of the defendants. As such, the Second Circuit found the Act unconstitutional on its face because detention without bail punished the individuals for anticipated future crimes."[The Bail Reform Act's] authorization of pretrial detention [on the ground of future dangerousness] [is] repugnant to the concept of substantive due process, which we believe prohibits the total deprivation of liberty simply as a means of preventing future crimes."The US Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit, holding that the legislation could only be overturned as unconstitutional if "no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid." While the Court acknowledged the Act might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances, that was insufficient to nullify the act because the Court only recognized the "overbreadth doctrine" (can be applied to broadly) in the context of the First Amendment.The Court further held that the Act did not violate substantive due process rights because the confinement was regulatory, not punitive (it served a purpose other than punishment). Congress intended the Act to prevent danger to the community, which the Court held was a reasonable goal. The statute protected the defendants' rights by providing for a hearing to contest the decision and by limiting the length of time the defendants could be held before trial.Salerno also alleged that a law allowing the defendants to be held without bail violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Bail Clause by setting bail at "an infinite amount." This argument was based on Stack v. Boyle, 342 U. S. 1 (1951), in which the Court stated that "[b]ail set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated [to ensure the defendant's presence at trial] is 'excessive' under the Eighth Amendment."Chief Justice Rehnquist countered that the Eighth Amendment didn't anticipate a need to hold defendants without bail, and that there were other established exceptions to the Excessive Bail Clause. In reversing the Second Circuit, Rehnquist summarized the Court's position:"In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception. We hold that the provisions for pretrial detention in the Bail Reform Act of 1984 fall within that carefully limited exception."
The Pendleton Reform Act attempted to reform?
civil service
When was the first reform bill passed in England?
The Representation of the People Act 1832, Reform Act 1832 or Great Reform Act was an Act of Parliament that introduced wide-ranging changes to the electoral system of England and Wales.
What is the US Supreme Court case US v Salerno about?
The case United States v. Salerno, 481 US 739 (1987), challenged the federal Bail Reform Act of 1984 on the grounds that it violated a defendant's Fifth Amendment Due Process rights and imposed punishment under the Eighth Amendment Excessive Bail Clause.In Salerno, the Boss and one of the Captains of the Genovese organized crime family were arrested on 29 counts of racketeering, including conspiracy to commit murder, under the US RICO statutes. The District Court ordered the two men held without bail under the provisions of the Bail Reform Act of 1984, but the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the lower court ruling, holding the decision violated substantive due process because it unreasonably interfered with the liberty rights of the defendants. As such, the Second Circuit found the Act unconstitutional on its face because detention without bail punished the individuals for anticipated future crimes."[The Bail Reform Act's] authorization of pretrial detention [on the ground of future dangerousness] [is] repugnant to the concept of substantive due process, which we believe prohibits the total deprivation of liberty simply as a means of preventing future crimes."The US Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit, holding that the legislation could only be overturned as unconstitutional if "no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid." While the Court acknowledged the Act might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances, that was insufficient to nullify the act because the Court only recognized the "overbreadth doctrine" (can be applied to broadly) in the context of the First Amendment.The Court further held that the Act did not violate substantive due process rights because the confinement was regulatory, not punitive (it served a purpose other than punishment). Congress intended the Act to prevent danger to the community, which the Court held was a reasonable goal. The statute protected the defendants' rights by providing for a hearing to contest the decision and by limiting the length of time the defendants could be held before trial.Salerno also alleged that a law allowing the defendants to be held without bail violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Bail Clause by setting bail at "an infinite amount." This argument was based on Stack v. Boyle, 342 U. S. 1 (1951), in which the Court stated that "[b]ail set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated [to ensure the defendant's presence at trial] is 'excessive' under the Eighth Amendment."Chief Justice Rehnquist countered that the Eighth Amendment didn't anticipate a need to hold defendants without bail, and that there were other established exceptions to the Excessive Bail Clause. In reversing the Second Circuit, Rehnquist summarized the Court's position:"In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception. We hold that the provisions for pretrial detention in the Bail Reform Act of 1984 fall within that carefully limited exception."
