impermissible discrimination based on wealth, violation of equal protection of laws
How later courts described this case
- impermissible discrimination based on wealth, violation of equal protection of laws
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CATES, Presiding Judge
(concurring):
I am worried that our peace bond statute is unconstitutional on its face. Since 1970 I believe no one can be legally detained for a crime unless under a judgment requiring *645 proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L. Ed.2d 368 and Ivan v. City of New York, 407 U.S. 203 , 92 S.Ct. 1951 , 32 L.Ed.2d 659 . This latter case applied Winship retroactively. See Wilbur v. Mullaney, 1 Cir., 473 F.2d 943 — a homicide case.
Certainly a proper peace bond law serves a useful societal purpose. Here the appellant exhibits at times an ungovernable temper with attendant physical aggression. Sociopathy is no defense in our jurisprudence. Every citizen is entitled to life, limb and peaceful enjoyment of his rights and privileges. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas conversely restrains the other.
I hope that our Legislature will examine and amend this law.
My concurring opinion nowise is intended to detract from Judge Harris’s opinion, which I consider to be the proper pragmatic solution to the situation presented on this record.