i guess i find that odd. if the behaviour in and of itself is not criminal or was not the offence commited for which you have been given bail/parole- it doesn't seem right to me - to have it as a condition.
Lindsay Lohan jailed for 30 days: Judge denies actress bail, remands her
- Thread starter alexmst
- Start date
This all started when she was arrested for DWI/OUI/DUI (drunk driving) whatever the charge is termed in California, then she decided to add to it by failing to appear, violating conditions etc. . . .i guess i find that odd. if the behaviour in and of itself is not criminal or was not the offence commited for which you have been given bail/parole- it doesn't seem right to me - to have it as a condition.
What would you expect in a bail condition then?i guess i find that odd. if the behaviour in and of itself is not criminal or was not the offence commited for which you have been given bail/parole- it doesn't seem right to me - to have it as a condition.
"Do not drive drunk", it's already a crime, no need to put it in a bail condition. So she's presumably banned from the two elements which formed that crime: drinking and driving.
yes thats what i understood. I would understand her licence being revoked. but random drug tests seems too intrusive to me.This all started when she was arrested for DWI/OUI/DUI (drunk driving) whatever the charge is termed in California, then she decided to add to it by failing to appear, violating conditions etc. . . .
just to clarify- I am not really talking about ms. lohan specifically- but trying to understand the development of bail conditions which seem more and more intrusive in recent years. is that the case or am I just imagining it? i also wonder whether this is the way things are in Canada as wellThis all started when she was arrested for DWI/OUI/DUI (drunk driving) whatever the charge is termed in California, then she decided to add to it by failing to appear, violating conditions etc. . . .
