No consistency in bond rules

Commonwealth Attorney Roy Evans has filed a motion to revoke bond on Barry Marshall II due to Marshall’s inability to maintain the conditions of his bond. This came as a result of his being arrested for a public intoxication charge 27 hours after having been charged with driving under the influence. Both charges were alcohol-related and he was still granted bond.

I have always thought that by bonding out of jail you were agreeing to keep the peace or the bond would be revoked. Keeping the peace, in my opinion, means that you obey the law and not commit any crimes.

Based on that fact, why was Marshall allowed bond? Why was his first bond not revoked automatically by the magistrate? He evidently was not obeying the law.

I know a convicted felon who has been on probation since his release from jail in June 2007. He was charged with malicious wounding of an individual and assault and battery on my daughter in September 2007. Then, a month later, in October he was charged with violation of a protective order my daughter filed on him. Yet he was granted bond on all charges. Why is he still walking the streets?

Where is the consistency in our justice system? I’m certain that some individuals are not granted bond based on their intent to continue to break the law. Why do other individuals get multiple bonds while continuing to break the law? And why does a motion have to be filed to revoke a bond for a consistent offender?

Teresa Pennington
Marion, Va.