Bad boy bail bonds Las Vegas- The forms of bail bonds in Las Vegas

The forms of bail bonds in Las Vegas

With the advent of Law 12,403 / 11, the use of the bail institute within our legal system was significantly increased. As a result of this legislative innovation, which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure in the part dealing with prisons and various precautionary measures, infractions whose maximum sentences summarized in abstract do not exceed 04 years are subject to provisional release by means of bail in the policy sphere.

In this context, common crimes such as simple theft, receiving, intoxication behind the wheel, etc., are assured by the police officer himself, which undoubtedly reflects in the decarburization policy now so fostered by the implementation of custody hearings. However, situations in which the police authority establishes bail amounts are not uncommon, but the inmate is not in a position to pay.

It is at this point that an interesting question arises and little touched upon by doctrine. We refer to cases where the magistrate when analyzing the indictment in flagrante, grants provisional release on bail for the benefit of the prisoner, but the prisoner fails to pay it. In these situations, the question arises: what is the title of this prison?

This, then, is not autonomous and can not justify the maintenance of segregation, which is only based on its conversion into pre-trial detention, otherwise, its freedom must be restored through a different precautionary measure.

Having said that, we have stated that the approach to this question must be divided into two aspects, if not yet. If the inmate fails to pay the bail because he does not have the financial conditions to do so, it will be up to the judge to reduce the amount of this injunction or even to waive it under the terms of article 325 , paragraph 1 , items I and II of the CPP.

On the other hand, if the inmate fails to pay the bail even if the financial conditions for it are fulfilled, it will be for the judge, as the case may be, to substitute this precautionary measure for another one of the prison or to decree the preventive measure by virtue of the previous noncompliance with the measure decreed, as expressed in article 312 , sole paragraph , with article 282 , §§ 4 and 6 , of the CPP .

Things that are property, such as homes, cars, money, stocks, etc., are often required by bondsmen for collateral because they will sell those items to pay off the rest of the bail amount if the defendant does not show up at court.  click here now to learn more about bail and bail bonds.

In this context, it is not possible that the arrest in flagrante will last for one or two months awaiting the payment of the fixed bail. It should be borne in mind that in these cases the provisional release granted to the inmate is conditional on the payment of the bail. Thus, if this condition is not met within a reasonable time, the restriction of freedom will only be justified with the enactment of preventive custody.

Taking an analogy with article 322 , sole paragraph , of the CPP , we understand that the incarcerated in flagrante would have the term of up to 48 hours to pay the guarantee, otherwise, the judge would be authorized to replace it with another precautionary measure or even to convert the flagrant pre-trial detention, as already mentioned. In such situations, therefore, the actual red-handed arrest would exceptionally be the basis for the restriction of the detainee’s freedom. Consequently, it’s maximum duration, which normally is 24 hours, would last for up to 72 hours.

In any case, it should be clear that the decision taken by the judicial authority at the time of the examination of the arrest warrant in flagrante must always be justified, which is absolutely in accordance with Article 93, paragraph IX, of the Constitution of the Republic.

Decriminalization of the crime of bigamy

Crime of bigamy 

Crime of bigamy 

What ethic is this that still considers “bigamy” a crime, and not, “adultery”, which since Law No. 11.106 / 05, is no longer considered a crime? So can I betray my spouse, at ease, as long as nobody knows? But if I resolve to take on my “second spouse” in public, officializing my marriage through marriage, do I commit “crime of bigamy,” even if my spouse agrees?

I do not understand this, for to me what counts is the true intention of the people and not the appearances. This ethic distorted by the convention that marriage can only be one, is that it has awakened several crimes of passion. Would not it be time to review these hypocritical concepts and values? After all, having more than one spouse at the same time could not be considered a crime anywhere, since many (more evolved) people no longer care about the exclusiveness and sexual possessiveness that they consider to be an outdated and stingy value.

These exclusivist and selfish values ​​ignore the love reality of many people who, despite having more than one spouse, are forced to keep up appearances by hiding the “second spouse”, otherwise they will be locked into saddles as if they were real criminals. Often these “criminals” who make up more than one family are happier than many traditional families of faithful but unhappy people.

Is not it time to review these selfish and mediocre values ​​and decriminalize bigamy, just as it was done with adultery? In fact, these people who dare to love more than one spouse, and build more than one family, should be examples for society, in that they often sacrifice themselves to keep more than one home, despite the difficulties and prejudices they face.

In laws or contracts

In laws or contracts

In today’s world where selfishness and individualism reign, this should be an example of solidarity and altruism. In the present times any form of love is valid, as long as it is for the improvement of marital and family happiness. True love, of course, should have no limits in rules pre-established in laws or contracts.

In fact, just as it is now possible for the couple to stipulate an arrangement of property proper to their marriage through the prenuptial agreement, it should also be possible to stipulate the type of marriage they desire: whether monogamy or polygamy. Only when this is possible will we have achieved true social democracy in its broadest and most democratic sense, that is, without the exclusion of anyone, much less of the “lovers” who are often responsible for the total happiness of the so-called traditional families.

In this sense, law should accompany the evolution of society’s customs and play its proper role, that is, regulate, through laws, as many factual situations as possible, and especially those that have been forgotten by the legislator, as is the case of polygamy. Thus, polygamy should be rethought and regulated by our legislators, even if they do not agree with this practice, because it is not a problem of the right to establish moral norms but to identify and regulate rights. Finally, to the Law, it is only up to regulate and protect people and their rights equally and without prejudice. After all, everyone is equal before the law and deserves the same legal protection in their family relations whatever they may be.

I leave here a question for reflection: to what extent can the State legislate by restricting the formation of new family nuclei in the way they are formed today, without restricting the number or sex of its components, and without discriminating against other forms of family that may with the evolution of society? Can the State prevent people from living together in a family relationship and acquiring rights derived from this coexistence simply because they want to form a family different from the traditional one? I do not think, then, that the State can not interfere in the intimate and family life of people, especially in relation to fundamental questions such as the search for happiness through personal fulfillment within the family, which must be protected in a way that does not restrict the possibilities There are many that exist for the formation of new families other than the conventional ones in order to really protect the fundamental right of people to live in a free, democratic, ethical, harmonious, loving, responsible and happy way.