For years now (mostly subject to the Hollywood image), many law enforcement officers and those in the public safety community have been involved in the inspection and regulation of federal bounty hunters. The office of bounty hunting has gone by many names, including but not limited to bail, fugitive recovery, and bail recovery bond. Currently, the service is governed by the states in which the hunter practices bounty. As usual, the actions of a few black-eyed-peas”> have given the rest of the industry a black eye.
The bounty hunters will do the necessary process criminal justice system at no cost to the taxpayers. Liberal hunters welcome those who miss court dates into judicial custody to stand up for the accused, confront prosecutors, grant closure to victims, and generally make the courts run smoothly. Court cannot run smoothly when no one shows up when they are supposed to. In the concept of bail, it is necessary to protect the rights of the accused, who is innocent until proven guilty. If all those arrested were to stay in jail until their next court date, the local jails would become barges, and the jail staff would be on duty. The performance of the industry helps to lighten the burden of financial reasons for one to appear in court at the appointed time.
There have been examples where former bounty hunters made some foolish (and illegal) war decisions. But is this enough to justify federal surveillance? Could our government, today’s economy, really afford to regulate another industry? Will the entire industry be bailed out by the government so that it can do business as it currently controls the auto and industries it relies on? A proponent of free trade disagrees.
As the saying goes, don’t judge. The federal government should also regulate doctors (for malpractice lawsuits), local police (for excessive force lawsuits and corruption scandals), lawyers (for more environmental lawsuits) or teachers (for abuse of statutory courts). The point I’m trying to make here is that there are a lot of career fields and groups that have their own deviants, but no one seems to be calling for federal care of these industries (unless I’m missing something). No group of people is perfect, and as long as there is free will, people knowingly or unknowingly impose the law.
In all of the examples listed above, federal oversight/regulation is slim to none. The federal government is taking some steps to support higher career fields, such as the bail bond industry, but there is no federal license to practice in some of the listed fields that allows make the second person in many states Generally, when someone wants to work in a career field, they are licensed by their state to practice, unless the job is only done in an area of federal jurisdiction (such as military bases). A few states allow a licensee in one state to practice full time in another state; The government of the states to regulate their private affairs and civil services is the right of each state. . Since some states have more favorable requirements than others, it is their right to relax their requirements if they wish. State governments play a large part in the bailout industry. A bounty hunter is generally not allowed to cross state lines to arrest a fugitive, or to extradite a fugitive across state lines without permission from the courts of a foreign state. Some states, indeed all have promulgated bounty hunting at the same time. Liberal hunters respect these laws and do not enter states where their job is “illegal” to catch a fugitive.
The business of recovering fugitives is mainly their authority from US borders. supreme court cases Taylor v. Taintor acquires 1872). Many would probably argue that this case was one of the biggest moves the federal government made to affect the bailout industry. Later, the federal government (for the most part) decided that individual states would regulate the industry within their borders. In the Supreme Court said in that case:
” When bail is given, he is appointed to be in charge of the custody of his sureties. Their dominion is perpetual in the original prison. Whenever it pleases them to do so, they shall seize him and deliver him in his mission. And if this cannot be done immediately, in prison, until it can be done for this purpose a href=”https://e-info.vn/tag/house-breaking”>breaking and entering a house can work
The above affirms that the same rights are granted by himself or by an agent, by himself or by an agent (a bountiful hunter). the sheriff rearrested that a prisoner had escaped to be brought up. This is important because it shows that the generosity of hunters should be limited by their laws. Also, a sheriff trying to set up a flight may not accidentally cross state lines. In most areas, local authorities should at least be vigilant. If police officers can’t cross state lines as they please, bounty hunters can’t. Since bounty hunters need to cross state lines, if they enter a state where bounty hunting is legal, they usually must first obtain permission from the foreign state’s courts to extradite their captives to their home country. Some states do not allow foreign bounty hunters to take captives, and require the bounty hunter to report the fugitive’s location to local police when caught. Only these scenarios are possible. Every jurisdiction that bounty hunters enter may have very different bounty hunting laws than the last one. Allowing cross-country bounty hunters to arrest fugitives in any state undermines individual states’ rights. A federal license to exercise bounty hunting allows bounty hunters more authority than local police when it comes to apprehending fugitives.
For those who believe that federal training requirements should be established, the same question arises. How can the federal government train employees (or require employees to be trained in some way) and expect the training to be effective when the government must take into account the laws of fifty different states. Most federal leaders law enforcement want local or state police officers, however, it is necessary to comply with the requirements of each state in what they want to do or through training or testing. As a former commander of the military, when my military contract expired, I was unable to work in law enforcement. no state without training meeting the requirements of that state. Even though I was trained by the federal government and given my authority by federal law.
Federal licensing/training requirements for bounty hunters would diminish state rights, cause even more animosity between law enforcement and the bail industry, and create the image of bounty hunters as vigilantes with greater authority. The actions of a few should not allow the federal government to control an entire private industry. If more stringent licensing/training requirements are required, they must be met by individual states. For now, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I will say it again; the mistakes of a few should not lead society to believe that the whole system is broken.
Sources:
Taylor v. Taintor US Supreme Court Center.
