ForumGarden

Am I the only one that wonders why when going to court, the non violent accused, well dressed, is handcuffed and in some cases manacled in addition to generally being guarded by two well armed and stalwart guards? Isn't that a bit overkill? Is there a fear that the accused forger or shop lifter, marijuana possessor, embezzler might all of a sudden become violent or is it just a way to tell who is the accused and who is the defense attorney.:wah:

Good lord, where on earth do they do that? China?

spot;1397126 wrote: Good lord, where on earth do they do that? China?


How about the good ole U.S.A.

I"ll find some pics and post.

Now here is a real dangerous criminal that could go bezerk at any moment.

Attached files

And - let me get this straight - does a defendant, convicted or otherwise, ever enter a courtroom with such restraint upon his person?

spot;1397130 wrote: And - let me get this straight - does a defendant, convicted or otherwise, ever enter a courtroom with such restraint upon his person?


Yes--- there does seem to be some exceptions though-----the famous O.J. Simpson trial for example where he was accused of murder, never showed him in court handcuffed or manacled.

Attached files

In England nobody appears in a courtroom with restraints unless application has been made in advance and the judge has given prior permission, andThere must always be compelling reasons supported by a risk

assessment and comprehensive information before applications are

made for the use of any restraints. Care must always be exercised to

restrict the occasions where applications for Custody Management

Directions are made to the Court to those where the use of restraints is,

exceptionally, justified.

Detainees in transit can only be handcuffed if an individual risk assessment has indicated a justifiable need for restraint in that instance, made by a duty manager or someone senior. If an incident occurs during which handcuffs are applied, retroactive sanction has to be obtained and written into the permanent paperwork.

Foot manacles are unknown. The only time any leg restraint can be applied is on foreign flights. I reckon your law officers are given more rope than they need.

From what I observed when called for jury duty, those who were handcuffed were those being transferred from jail. Those out on bail seemed to just walk into the courthouse with no restraints.

There seems to be quite a bit of inconsistency here in the U.S. and I suspect depends on the jurisdiction and nature of the crime for which the prisoner is accused. I notice too, that some will be wearing a suit and tie (out on bail?) and others the red or orange jump suit (not out on bail)

Wandrin;1397133 wrote: From what I observed when called for jury duty, those who were handcuffed were those being transferred from jail. Those out on bail seemed to just walk into the courthouse with no restraints.


You're right, and that seems discriminatory to me since in both cases they are accused and not convicted.

Let's look at the logistics problems of a couple of guards transporting a busload of prisoners from jail. Some of them are dressed in suits and some in jail jumpsuits. Presumably, those dressed in suits have the money to hire a good lawyer who brought the suit to them to wear in court, but they might have been denied bail as a flight risk. The guards might have no clue as to whether the prisoner is charged with a violent crime or defrauding granny of her life savings. The guards must simply assume that all pose a risk of violence or escape.

I would assume that all but those deemed dangerous would not be handcuffed while sitting at the defendant's table in front of the jury. If they are in court for arraignment or motion hearings, where no jury is present, the handcuffs would not be prejudicial.

That description sounds like a good reason not to cut costs to the bone.

Wandrin;1397137 wrote: Let's look at the logistics problems of a couple of guards transporting a busload of prisoners from jail. Some of them are dressed in suits and some in jail jumpsuits. Presumably, those dressed in suits have the money to hire a good lawyer who brought the suit to them to wear in court, but they might have been denied bail as a flight risk. The guards might have no clue as to whether the prisoner is charged with a violent crime or defrauding granny of her life savings. The guards must simply assume that all pose a risk of violence or escape.



I would assume that all but those deemed dangerous would not be handcuffed while sitting at the defendant's table in front of the jury. If they are in court for arraignment or motion hearings, where no jury is present, the handcuffs would not be prejudicial.




If you will do a IMAGE SEARCH on GOOGLE ---for Courtroom handcuffing/manacles etc you will view many pics of well dressed defendants sitting in the courtroom handcuffed.

I think most of the manacled pics in court are for hearings and motions where the (a) jury are not present. I was on a jury for murder and never seen the guy handcuffed manacled etc. etc. He was not out on bail either. They don't cuff them in front of jurors unless they have shown to be a danger risk. In my observations.

This is only a Bond Hearing, but none the less, are the chains really necessary? Do you approve?

Distress calls - The Daily

Attached are two pics of handcuffed individuals at trial, in courtroom, before a jury.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian (Dr. Death?) & Dr. Conrad Murray (Michael Jackson death trial)

Attached files

It's apparent there are different rules operating either side of the Atlantic.

Dr Kevorkian should be canonized.

Found one...

Attached files

Lon;1397229 wrote: Attached are two pics of handcuffed individuals at trial, in courtroom, before a jury.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian (Dr. Death?) & Dr. Conrad Murray (Michael Jackson death trial)


I think if you were to check closer you would find that the jury had not been seated yet. So yes they are in court but the jury most likely did not see the cuffs on.

YZGI;1397278 wrote: I think if you were to check closer you would find that the jury had not been seated yet. So yes they are in court but the jury most likely did not see the cuffs on.


It doesn't matter if the jury or any one else for that matter sees the defendant handcuffed. My whole point was, why the use of handcuffs and in some cases manacles on defendants that obviously pose no physical threat.

Lon;1397280 wrote: It doesn't matter if the jury or any one else for that matter sees the defendant handcuffed. My whole point was, why the use of handcuffs and in some cases manacles on defendants that obviously pose no physical threat.


Good point. I have no idea other than wanting to show their power.

Lon;1397280 wrote: It doesn't matter if the jury or any one else for that matter sees the defendant handcuffed. My whole point was, why the use of handcuffs and in some cases manacles on defendants that obviously pose no physical threat.


Obvious to whom? Have you not seen enough clips of defendants, after getting their sentence, jumping over the table after the judge or prosecutors? And yes, it does matter if the jury sees them in handcuffs and manacles. Pschologically the jury may think they are automatically guilty if they are cuffed.

It's like showing a witness a person in the back of a police car and asking if that is the person that committed the crime. They think, if the police caught that guy, it must be him. Although I have seen them do that on cop shows. I suppose it depends on the state.

I personally think they all should be treated the same despite how famous they are or how much we have heard of him. I have seen Sandusky getting out of a personal vehicle, uncuffed and carrying files. But I believe he is out on bail. Of all people, he should be waiting in jail!