" Well, "Get A Grip", I'm firmly in reality, but I appreciate the concern, truly.

However, just so I'm clear and concise here, while I find the man's actions objectionable, even with the bare amount of information I've seen in the original poster's comments, that doesn't mean I want the law bent or the constitution ignored, since it is over the top actions, like unreasonable bail, that often get folks like this out on technicalities. How often do we see criminals walk because the police used excessive force? Or because the suspect wasn't properly marandized? Or because a judge improperly used their authority?

If the work to convict a child abuser is not done properly, then the abuser will not only walk free, but most like have their children returned to them, which doesn't serve to protect them, at all. Worse yet, if the case goes to trial and the jury is given the impression of a bad case, compounded by misapplied authority, then the accused is found not guilty, thus by double jeopardy they cannot be tried again.

It is not about being self righteous, it is about the equal, fair, and appropriate application of the law. If you feel the need to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak, when it comes to your opinion of my tone, then so be it, but attacking the tone of my opinion, instead of the substance of it, doesn't help your opinion's validity.

In an effort of full disclosure, I should point out that I am not a lawyer, although I've a healthy understanding of the law, including juvenile law and child protective services, and while I agree that violators should be fully, firmly, and effectively punished, I do not feel it should begin before they are properly tried and convicted. "

" Ok R.N.E. Get off your high horse and come back to reallity! You preach in your recent blogging all this self richese crap! Seriously take a good look around you. What horrible crimes have to be commited before someone really gets the effective punishments? You should learn to respect others opinions WITHOUT attempting to belittle them in the demeaning manner which you have chosen. You should take a good look at yourself someday and analize why you are such a negative judgemental individual. With your negative comments you have made on these blogs, I find YOU everything YOU have accused others of being. Your comments calling others ignorant are very inapropriate and just because you took an english writing class makes doesnt make you better then anyone else. Maybe someday when your a victim like these children are, you will have some compassion and understanding for the situation, and maybe even thank the people who have the courrage to stand up for those who cant! "

" Mr. Bath,

Without knowing the facts of the case, all I can say is that, odds are, most any judge would have done exactly the same thing, since it is the court's duty to provide fair and just bail offerings.

If the man has little to no criminal record and shows little to no chance of being a flight risk, then it is his constitutional right to expect and receive fair bail.

It doesn't make his actions acceptable, nor palpable, but it is the same right that you would expect if you are ever before a judge, as the ruling is there to keep excessive use, as well as misuse, of authority from happening.

Imagine, if you will, a judge who has been personally affected by a DUI, either being charged with one or losing a loved one to an accident, thus their own bias has them granting, or denying, bail because of that feeling. Not only is it unjust, but it is criminal, too and many a judge has been censured or impeached for such action.

Let the system work, but to do so justly and above board. It might not seem like it now, but in the end that man will receive a just sentence and he'll have to serve it, without having grounds for an appeal due to his constitutional rights being violated. "