Pros And Cons Of Mr Nelson Release

426 Words2 Pages

I have chosen to grant Mr. Nelson release due to the strong arguments made by the defense and weak arguments put forth by the crown. First, as seen in both the case description as well as restated by both defense attorneys, Mr. Nelson “has no prior criminal record” (Jack B.), therefore, giving proof to how Mr. Nelson “has no intention of endangering the public in any capacity” (Jacob A.), as well as rebutting doubt against Mr. Nelson not appearing in court with a summons. These arguments support the base outlines for bail release: to ensure public safety, eliminate public fear, and to diminish possible doubts of flight risk/not appearing in court. Second, the defense makes the argument where despite Mr. Nelson being charged with conspiracy to commit murder, “while police did search his home, no illicit drugs …show more content…

With no clear evidence to back up the charge, the nature of the crime is questioned. This is very important to the decision we have to make as judges: is the reputation of the judicial system worth being put at risk by potentially holding a person with no clear evidence against him in custody before a trial? As a judge, my opinion is no. Third, possibly the most conceptual yet strong statement to conclude his rebuttal made by attorney Jacob A. was the game changer that finally led my decision to rule in favour of release. “To suggest that Mr. Nelson is a clear, prevalent, [and] immediate danger to the public is to base your argument on hypotheticals with no evidence to back them up.” (Jacob A.) He firmly concludes his argument by consolidating the fact that there is no evidence held against Mr. Nelson—why should he be suspected as any danger? The answer is simple: he should not be suspected.