If a defendant is innocent until proven guilty then how can we allow the government to remand a defendant till trial. They always say the defendant is a flight risk, that statement is dependant upon the idea that the defendant is guilty, and if the defendant is innocent and takes flight then they should have taken flight since the incompetence of the DOJ has already been established. The 2nd thing they say is that the defendant is a danger to the community, again that is dependant on the idea that the defendant is guilty they obviously wouldn't be a danger if they were innocent, and we have already established that they are innocent till proven guilty. the most I could justify is if the defendant was insane, and they were remanded to a hospital until trial, since then the isea would be based on protecting the community from person who is innocent but will still do harm.

Police don't make felony arrests without confidence that they can prove their case in court because the prosecution only has one chance to sway the jury. If their is enough suspicion for arrest than their is enough for temporary detainment. Furthermore judges aren't stupid and they look at each case, weigh the facts, and make a decision that is in the best interest of the public.

Just to play devils advocate though.

A person shouldn't have a rational fear of the people. The people should have an irrational fear of a person

I'm not sure remanding means what you think it means? It's the act of sending a case back from one court to another over a procedural error, isn't it?

Detention, maybe?

Regardless, it ultimately comes down to the fact that they have not judged you guilty or not guilty. While you may be presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until proven otherwise, that doesn't mean the law has to be stupid about it and give every single person that gets busted the opportunity to run like hell. That's why the judge has the ability to review the facts of the case, set bail, determine flight risks and all of that.

Even someone who is innocent might flee if he/she feels the court will not judge fairly. This is specially a matter with jury courts since those are occupied by ordinary citizens that can be swayed easily by a skilled prosecutor. Specially if things looked bad for the defendant in the first place. That is why even innocent people might try to escape from judgement. This does bring the moral question if someone is innocent but is hunted by the system that will most likely rule him/her guilty. Who is on the good side?

The system isn't perfect but you wouldn't wan't some lunatic to go free on a rampage because he's innocent until proven guilty. You would be so mad on the government if that lunatic killed your kid on school just because they let him go because he's innocent until proven guilty. Eventhough you are supporting the idea now, you would be very mad then.

So until the system is perfect, we have no other choice but to accept certain draconic methods to cover up most of those faults.

Even someone who is innocent might flee if he/she feels the court will not judge fairly. This is specially a matter with jury courts since those are occupied by ordinary citizens that can be swayed easily by a skilled prosecutor. Specially if things looked bad for the defendant in the first place. That is why even innocent people might try to escape from judgement. This does bring the moral question if someone is innocent but is hunted by the system that will most likely rule him/her guilty. Who is on the good side?

The system isn't perfect but you wouldn't wan't some lunatic to go free on a rampage because he's innocent until proven guilty. You would be so mad on the government if that lunatic killed your kid on school just because they let him go because he's innocent until proven guilty. Eventhough you are supporting the idea now, you would be very mad then.

So until the system is perfect, we have no other choice but to accept certain draconic methods to cover up most of those faults.

Alright I get your point, so let's change what it is to be remanded, instead of sending them be to jail, send them to a nice guarded hotel, make them comfortible just incase they are innocent, after proven guilty then they can go to jail.

Alright I get your point, so let's change what it is to be remanded, instead of sending them be to jail, send them to a nice guarded hotel, make them comfortible just incase they are innocent, after proven guilty then they can go to jail.

You're fucking kidding, right? Either way you're in custody. You may not be in five-star accomodations, but you're not in a real jail, either. If you're genuinely innocent, you should be spending the time plotting lawsuits against every one of the motherfuckers that got you sent there.

Alright I get your point, so let's change what it is to be remanded, instead of sending them be to jail, send them to a nice guarded hotel, make them comfortible just incase they are innocent, after proven guilty then they can go to jail.

Oh please. Remand centres must seem like luxury accommodation to the calibre of person that isn't bailed.