Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Arbitrary and selective discrepancies in bail

The News & Observer had an article in the September 6, 2010 edition about a 39 year-old Raleigh woman who was being held on a $5 million bail. Surely she must have been charged with committing a heinous and violent act against a human being… possibly a brutal assault or maybe an armed robbery with a little pistol whipping involved or maybe even murder. That is the kind of offense that I would imagine would warrant a bail in the stratosphere that easily exceeds the million dollar benchmark. But no… I would be wrong, as this young lady was charged with nonviolent crimes including identity theft and burglary. In all, she faces 29 felony and misdemeanor charges.

Now I don’t condone unlawful acts, regardless the nature, as laws are supposedly in place for the benefit and protection of all individuals. And this lady, Heather Holly, even went to the diabolical extreme of trying to shift blame of her criminal spree onto another person who shared the same name as she. That is cold-blooded. And identity theft crimes can result in serious and long-term problems for victims, who oft times are unaware of their victimization.
From the article, there is no indication that the crimes were committed with Ms. Holly being armed, and there is no indication that anyone was ever harmed by her during the commission of her crimes. There are a myriad of cases, however, in which serious injury – often life threatening – is inflicted on children and adults. Yet the bail for suspected perpetrators of violent crimes never even approaches that of Ms. Holly. Recently, for example, five or six Special Forces soldiers who beat up a single male at a topless bar, in which the victim sustained four skull fractures, were released without having to pay a bond… they just had to promise to show up for their next court appearance. Infants, not even a year old, have been beaten, sustained skull and rib fractures, and left comatose, with the offender’s bail not even coming anywhere close to a million dollars.

Another case that comes to mind is that of Johnny West, a middle-aged man who became enraged when a stranger yelled at him to slow down while he was driving in a neighborhood in which children were playing. Well, he went home, retrieved his gun, and with his 9 year-old daughter, returned to the scene to confront the man. West fired at the man who happened to be armed himself. He returned fire wounding West in the arm and unintentionally striking West’s daughter in the abdomen with a bullet. She required emergency surgery which entailed the removal of her spleen and part of her stomach. The man who West fired at was not charged, whereas charges against West included assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and felony child abuse. Bail set for Mr. West was $28,000… and he readily made bond.

Heather Holly evidently used her ill-gotten gains to go on a $1,800 shopping spree at Best Buy, and although she allegedly stole a business check for $34,000, it appears from the article that she was unsuccessful in cashing it. She also used identity theft to try and obtain health insurance benefits, but again, it is unlikely that she received any. Despite her prolific criminal activity the financial impact of her illegal activities were meager to miniscule in comparison with other who have embezzled and defrauded individuals and businesses of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Yet, their bails, if they are held pre-trial, are meager to miniscule in comparison to that handed down to Heather Holly.

The problem with the court system in North Carolina, besides being one of “selective justice based on Class and Color,” is that bail is being used as a means to make an individual with a high bail serve a sentence without being convicted of a crime. The prime example is the James Arthur Johnson case, wherein he was held for 39 months without bail for a murder which the prosecutor, Bill Wolfe, knew that he did not commit. The prosecution knew that it could not win a fair conviction, so it moved the case along slowly while trying to get Johnson to plead guilty in exchange for time served. This is an horrendous case of injustice that the media has all but ignored. They won't even comment about how the Family and Friends of Brittany Willis stiffed Johnson out of the $20,000 reward he had earned.

However, using bail to make people serve a sentence without being convicted is not only morally and legally wrong, but it comes at a great expense to taxpayers. Even when charged with serious non-violent felonies, most defendants who are poor, disenfranchised, and of color, do not have the wherewithal to flee and start a new life elsewhere. So a reasonable bail, or pre-trial monitoring should be utilized in the majority of these cases. The other problem with housing non-violent defendants while awaiting trial, is the tremendous burden on taxpayer dollars. Pre-trial monitoring is a much better option than jail, in that it is much less costly, and does not totally disrupt the individual’s life. Lengthy incarceration invariably results in job loss, it the person was employed prior to arrest. Incarceration has a cascading affect on many facets of a person’s personal life in addition to work, and they include financial stress on family, stress on relationships, and loss of personal property. This only leads to the defendant and his family's need to rely more heavily on social programs in order to survive.

Unfortunately, the main purpose of bail (to assure the defendant shows up for trial) has been ignored, overlooked, and usurped by those who are intent on feeding and sustaining the correctional facility corporations. The big businesses whose bottom line depends on housing prisoners rely on bodies, whether or not they are non-violent or innocent, being held in jail. Those who are sacrificed to these beasts are society’s disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. As long this is the case in our capitalistic society, you can expect to see bail amounts escalate for those charged who are most vulnerable and least able to bond out. The well-heeled individuals with the ability to successfully flee the country and establish a safe haven abroad will continue to have little or no bail set for them, regardless of the charges they face or the seriousness of them.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

"....there is no indication that anyone was ever harmed by her during the commission of her crimes"

Ever been a victim of identity theft, Sid? If not, talk to some people who have and see if they feel they were "harmed" by it...

guiowen said...

One of the secretaries in my office, who had access to all our Social Security numbers, decided to open accounts in the names of several of us. She would go to department stores and claim to be my wife, saying we had just recently been married. (This explained why her ID had a different last name.) She gave them, as address, a post office box. She would then simply ignore any invoices that came there.
Fortunately, the credit checker at one store in the southern part of our state actually looked me up in the phone book, and called me one day to ask me whether this was really my wife.
Eventually, this young woman was led away in handcuffs, but not before creating problems for at least three of us. I myself wound up paying $500 to clear things up -- the limit that one of the stores had placed on "my" account. A mortgage broker at one of the local banks, who wanted my business and the commission he would get, actually paid another $500 in my name.

So please don't think that identity theft has no victims.

Anonymous said...

As usual, Sid misrepresents the truth...
The truth is that Heather HOLLEY is at the center of the biggest identity theft case in Wake County. Ever. The charges she faces could bring a maximum sentence of 62 years.
She was apparently extradited from Alabama...So perhaps there is also the issue of flight risk. None of this, of course, is mentioned by Sid.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'....there is no indication that anyone was ever harmed by her during the commission of her crimes'

Ever been a victim of identity theft, Sid? If not, talk to some people who have and see if they feel they were 'harmed' by it..."


By using the word "harmed" I meant physically harmed, or injured. For example the gentleman who was assaulted by five or six Special Forces soldiers was harmed. Among other injuries, he sustained four skull fractures. The judge released all of the defendants without bail, solely on the written promise that they would show up for their court date.

Just recently, a discharged soldier, without provocation, beat up a 63 year old man who was fishing. The man sustained serious injuries, including the loss of sight in one eye. He had bail set at $100,000.

I have never suggested that identity theft is not a crime and is not victimless. However, it is not a violent crime and does not result in loss of eyesight or physical pain and disability.

I am sorry for guiowen's identity theft encounter... but I would much rather him be a victim of that crime than be a victim of a violent assault.

My contention remains that the bail for Ms. Holly is way out of proportion to the seriousness of the crime... especially when compared with examples provided.

Anonymous said...

Wrong again, Sid. In regards to the SF soldiers, The US ARMY will ensure that they show up to their court dates. Since bail IS primarily to ensure that the defendants show up for trial, I certainly understand why no bail was assessed in this case. Their actions are ALSO punishable under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (Article 128), which means they can be found guilty by both civilian and military courts (no such thing as double jeopardy).

In regards to Ms. HOLLEY, I can give you a reason for high bail in 2 words: FLIGHT RISK.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Wrong again, Sid. In regards to the SF soldiers, The US ARMY will ensure that they show up to their court dates. Since bail IS primarily to ensure that the defendants show up for trial, I certainly understand why no bail was assessed in this case. Their actions are ALSO punishable under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (Article 128), which means they can be found guilty by both civilian and military courts (no such thing as double jeopardy).

In regards to Ms. HOLLEY, I can give you a reason for high bail in 2 words: FLIGHT RISK."


With regards to "Flight Risk" I have two words: Bail Bondsmen. It is their job to evaluate the risk of the defendant and decide whether or not to put up bond. No bail bondsman is required to provide bond for the defendant. The bail should be reasonable, and then allow the bondsmen to take it from their. I would believe that a person facing a murder charge would more likely be inclined to flee and take refuge abroad or live as a fugitive than someone facing identity theft charges. Ms. Holley surely doesn't have the financial resources, knowledge, and connections to elude authorities or bail bondsmen if she did elect to skip bail.

Regarding the service connection, being in the United States Marine Corps did not prevent accused murderer Cesar Laurean from fleeing to Mexico. Being in the military, in and of itself, cannot give complete assurances that a defendant will show up for court.


Next, let's discuss the cruel and criminal treatment of inmate Timothy Helms. Although his abusive mistreatment did garner some media attention, it is unfortunately more likely the rule than the exception.

Nifong Supporter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nifong Supporter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nifong Supporter said...



Notice: The two previous comments were deleted because they were copies of the previous one. I inadvertently posted it more than once, as the times they were posted suggests. I still maintain a policy where no comments are censored.

Anonymous said...

So now bail BONDSMEN are involved in setting bail amounts? Sid, you truly ARE letting your ignorance show.

Anonymous said...

And where is Cesar Laurean now, Sid?

Anonymous said...

"Ms. Holley surely doesn't have the financial resources, knowledge, and connections to elude authorities or bail bondsmen if she did elect to skip bail."

How do you know what Ms. Holley "surely" does or doesn't have? On what, exactly, do you base this statement?

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous September 10, 2010 11:01 AM:

Cesar is at Central Prison in Raleigh, NC prisoner #1222672

Sidney - being in the United States Marine Corps did not prevent accused murderer Cesar Laurean from fleeing to Mexico

Laurean was not arrested prior to his fleeing to Mexico, so bond was never set. He fled when he was named a suspect. Bad example, bro.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"@ Anonymous September 10, 2010 11:01 AM:

Cesar is at Central Prison in Raleigh, NC prisoner #1222672

Sidney - being in the United States Marine Corps did not prevent accused murderer Cesar Laurean from fleeing to Mexico

Laurean was not arrested prior to his fleeing to Mexico, so bond was never set. He fled when he was named a suspect. Bad example, bro."


Do you honestly believe that if Cesar Laurean was charged with murder and was free on bond that being in the military would have prevented him from fleeing to Mexico? Of course it would not have. And that is the point. Just because he was in the military does not mean that he should not have been placed under a significant bail for the crime of murder.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"So now bail BONDSMEN are involved in setting bail amounts? Sid, you truly ARE letting your ignorance show."


I never said or suggested that bail bondsmen were involved in setting bail amounts. I said that they had the ability to assess the risks involved with a defendant and the freedom to determine whether or not to post bail. If a defendant is deemed to be a severe flight risk, there is no guarantee that he/she would have bond posted by a bail bondsman, regardless of the amount of bail. Therefore, the amount of bail set for Ms. Holley should have been reasonable, and not ridiculously excessive. The bail amount should be based on the nature of the crime for which Ms. Holley was charged, and not the flight risk, Bail bondsmen should be the ones to determine whether or not to post bond based on their assessment of the flight risk.