Mon. May 20th, 2024

DuBose v. McGuffey – Supreme Court of Ohio Upholds Reasonable Bail Decision

The Eighth Amendment was adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. It protects against excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. Bail is considered excessive when it is set at a higher amount than is reasonably calculated to ensure the government’s interest.

Supreme Court of Ohio Upholds Reasonable Bail Decision

On January 4, 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio wasted no time in the new year in entering a historic decision. Over the past few years, criminal justice reform has been on the forefront of the political arena, news media, and equal rights activists. A substantial issue in criminal justice reform is the attempt to reform or outright eliminate the cash bail system. So often, minorities and lower-class defendants are given significant cash bail and afforded no reasonable way to post bail prior to trial. One of the foundational rights in the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution is the assumption that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, when an individual charged with a crime and given a $500,000 or even $1,000,000 bail, it is hard to imagine how that individual feels they have been presumed innocent.

The Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in DuBose v. McGuffey , may have changed the way the court system examines the decision of bail. The case stems out of a July 18, 2020 shooting in Hamilton County, Ohio were Shawn Green was killed in an alleged robbery. DuBose and a codefendant, Jamie Shelton, were charged for the death of Mr. Green. At the bail hearing, DuBose’s attorney asked for a “reasonable bail,” based off DuBose’s limited financial means, ties to the community, and a lack of criminal record. The State of Ohio asked for a bond of $1,500,000. The Court sided with the State and set bail at $750,000 for the murder charge and a separate $750,000 for the aggravated-robbery charge.

On January 26, 2021, DuBose’s attorney filed a Motion for Bond Reduction in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. DuBose emphasized that he had limited resources, no felony record, and ties to the community. The trial court agreed with DuBose and Judge Wende C. Cross reduced bond to $500,000. The next day, however, the trial court restored the original bail amount as the court had failed to notify the alleged victim’s family as required by Marsy’s Law . Upon re-hearing and input from the alleged victim’s family, the trial court denied DuBose’s motion to reduce bail and all subsequent attempts to reduce his bail were denied by the trial court. Mr. DuBose’s bail remained at $1,500,000.

On September 22, 2021, DuBose filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the First District Court of Appeals. The court of appeals held that bail in the amount of $1,500,000 was excessive because it did not take into account the defendant’s financial resources, as required by Ohio Criminal Rule 46(C)(4).  In the view of the court of appeals, “Dubose’s high bail was effectively a denial of bail, without the trial judge making any of the required statutory findings” to hold a defendant without bail.  The court of appeals therefore reduced DuBose’s bail to $500,000.  The state of Ohio appealed.

The Supreme Court of Ohio emphasized that the sole purpose of bail is to ensure a person’s attendance in court.  Both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution prohibit excessive bail (See 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution). The Court held that “a bail amount that is higher than an amount reasonably calculated to ensure the accused presence in court is ‘excessive.’”  Due to this reasoning, the Supreme Court held that the State’s appeal had no merit.

The Supreme Court held that when a trial court is determining an individual’s bail, the court must consider five factors per Ohio Criminal Rule 46: 1. The nature and circumstances of the crime charged and whether the crime involved a weapon; 2. The weight of the evidence against the defendant; 3. The confirmation of the defendant’s identity; 4. The defendant’s family ties, employment, financial resources, character, record of convictions; and 5. Whether the defendant was on parole or subject to another form of court control at the time of the alleged offense.

In their agreement with the court of appeals, the Supreme Court held that when a trial court balances the above factors, the court must set bail on the least restrictive means possible that will reasonably ensure an individual’s appearance in court.   The Court emphasized the Ohio Criminal Rule’s revision in July of 2020. That Rule’s revision states that the financial conditions of bail must relate to the defendant’s risk of non-appearance in court, the seriousness of the offense, and the individual’s prior record.  This means that public safety and an alleged victim or their family’s statement are not a consideration when a court determines the financial considerations of bail.  The Court focused on Criminal Rule 46(B)(2) and the fact that any public-safety concerns should be addressed by imposing nonfinancial conditions of bail. Consequently, any financial conditions placed upon an individual charged with a crime must be reasonable.

This decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio is monumental when examining bail reform. So often, a bail amount is set far-beyond the limits of what any criminal defendant could pay. This makes society question whether individuals charged with crimes truly are “presumed innocent.” Bail decisions are often fueled by emotion and statements from individuals who have just been the victim of an alleged crime. The Supreme Court makes clear that when imposing financial conditions of bail, this line of reasoning is inappropriate and so often leads to excessive, unreasonable bails.

We here at Rittgers Rittgers & Nakajima always strive to do everything we can for our clients. From the very start of a case and trying to get you or your loved one out on bond, to working towards a resolution, we never standby and wait to take action. Unlike other law firms, our criminal team does not sit back and wait for trial or for a resolution that the state suggests. We are aggressive and take action to ensure that our clients are set up down the best possible course of action. source

More on Bail:



Judge cites recent Ohio SUPCO decision in setting murder case bond

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (WKBN) — Citing a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision on bond, a Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judge Friday reduced bond for a man accused of shooting four people at a West Side apartment complex, killing one of them.

Judge John Durkin said that the $800,000 bond given to Marquez Thomas, 24, of North Glenellen Avenue, is unconstitutional under both the state and United States constitutions because he is effectively being detained without bond because he can not afford to post it.

Bond for Thomas was set at $150,000 with electronic house arrest should he post it and an order barring him from having any contact with the victims in the case or their families.

The case is believed to be the first in Mahoning County that cited the Supreme Court decision, Dubose v. McGuffey.

Thomas is accused of a shooting about 1:15 a.m. Dec. 27 in the parking lot of a Tyrell Avenue apartment complex that killed Joseph Addison, 42, and wounded three others. He faces a charge of aggravated murder and three counts of attempted murder.

Police are also seeking his sister, C’Mone Thomas, 22, who is also charged with aggravated murder.

Judge Durkin said he based his decision on a 4-3 ruling in January in the state supreme court that said bond is a way to ensure that someone appears for court and excessive bonds are unconstitutional.

The supreme court decision stemmed from a suspect in a 2020 Hamilton County murder, Justin Dubose, 26, who appealed his $1.5 million bond, calling it unreasonable and unconstitutional. The Su[preme Court upheld a First District Court Of Appeals ruling that reduced the suspect’s bond from $1.5 million to $500,000.

The panel pointed to a clause in the state’s criminal code that said judges should use the least restrictive conditions to make sure a defendant appears at future hearings in court.

Dubose had claimed that the bond was unconstitutional because he had limited resources, had no prior felony criminal record and also had ties to the community.

Maro said her client is indigent and she was appointed by the court to represent him, which means he does not even have money to pay for an attorney, let alone a high bond.

Thomas has no prior felony criminal record and in his two misdemeanor cases, he never missed a court date, Maro said. Maro said he has lived in the area his entire life, has family in the area and his girlfriend and mother check in with her regularly on the case and he was working as a welder before he was arrested.

Anticipating arguments from Assistant Prosecutor Nick Brevetta that her client was guilty of the crime, Maro said that has to be proven by a jury.

Brevetta said that under the Ohio Revised Code, a judge is allowed to take into account the safety of the community when determining what the amount of bond should be. In the Thomas case, Brevetta said Thomas is seen on video committing the crimes he is charged with and he had access to a firearm.

Brevetta said that judges can also take into account the weight of the evidence when setting bond. Thomas was seen on video carrying out the shootings and that evidence is compelling, Brevetta said.

“I could ask for better evidence, but that would be a confession,” Brevetta said.

Judge Durkin said bond is to ensure a defendant appears for court hearings, and that the supreme court decision emphasized that aspect of bond.

The Supreme Court also said that public safety is not a “consideration with respect to the financial conditions of bail” but the court said other restrictions that are not financial — such as banning a defendant from contact with certain people or travel — can be utilized to ensure public safety.

The judge said the decision “makes it clear that an $800,000 bond is in effect an order of detention” and unconstitutional under the state and United States constitutions.

DuBose v. McGuffey – Supreme Court of Ohio Upholds Reasonable Bail Decision

In recent years, a debate has emerged related to the appropriate role of bail in the American criminal justice system. A coalition of libertarian and progressive advocates has advocated for bail reform in order to reduce the number of Americans who are incarcerated, including those who are awaiting trial on criminal charges.[1] On the other side, certain advocates, including many traditional “law and order” conservatives, argue that bail reform is at least partially to blame for the recent spike in violent crime in America because individuals who have already been charged with crimes and are likely threats to public safety are being left on the streets.[2]

This simmering debate boiled over in Ohio because of a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision and a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution offered in response to the court’s decision.[3] The debate revolves around whether trial courts should be permitted to consider public safety concerns when setting bail amounts.

In DuBose v. McGuffey, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a decision by an intermediate state appellate court to reduce the bail of a criminal defendant—who was charged with multiple offenses, including murder—from $1,500,000 to $500,000.[4] The 4-3 decision resulted in five different opinions—the majority opinion, three dissenting opinions, and an opinion from a justice who joined the majority but wrote separately to dispute some of the dissenters’ claims.

Defendant Justin DuBose was charged with two counts of murder, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary. The Hamilton County Municipal Court initially set bail at $1,500,000 for DuBose.[5] DuBose then filed a motion for bail reduction with the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, which, following a hearing, reduced the bail amount to $500,000.[6] The next day, however, the trial court restored the original bail amount because the victim’s family had not been notified of the bail hearing as required by the Ohio Constitution.[7]

After the victim’s family was notified, the trial court held multiple hearings on DuBose’s motions to reduce bail. At one hearing, the victim’s grandmother testified that she and the victim’s mother would be “scared to death if [DuBose] gets out” and that they “don’t feel safe with him out on bond.” Following the hearings, the trial court denied the motions to reduce bail and left the amount at $1,500,000.[8]

DuBose then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of Appeals for the First Appellate District of Ohio. The appellate court granted the writ, reviewed the case de novo, held that the $1,500,000 bail was excessive, and reduced it to $500,000.[9]

The state then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court presenting two propositions of law: first, that the appellate court erred when it reviewed the trial court’s bail decision de novo, rather than under an abuse of discretion standard; and second, that the appellate court erred by discounting the statement of the victim’s grandmother regarding her and her daughter’s concerns for their personal safety.[10] A majority of the Ohio Supreme Court held that “whether a particular bail determination is unconstitutionally excessive is a question of law appropriate for de novo review”[11] and, accordingly, rejected the state’s first proposition of law.[12]

In considering the state’s second proposition of law, the majority reviewed sections of the Ohio Constitution providing for bail and noted that excessive bail is prohibited.[13] The Ohio Constitution states:

All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for a person who is charged with a capital offense where the proof is evident or the presumption great, and except for a person who is charged with a felony where the proof is evident or the presumption great and where the person poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community. Where a person is charged with any offense for which the person may be incarcerated, the court may determine at any time the type, amount, and conditions of bail. Excessive bail shall not be required . . . . The General Assembly shall fix by law standards to determine whether a person who is charged with a felony where the proof is evident or the presumption great poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community.[14]

The majority noted that if the state believed that DuBose posed a danger to the community and should be held without possibility of release, the state should have complied with procedures set forth in a statute, which include convincing the trial judge that

the proof is evident or the presumption great that the accused committed the serious offense with which the accused is charged, . . . that the accused poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community, and . . . no release conditions will reasonably assure the safety of that person and the community.[15]

The DuBose majority further noted that the appellate court found it significant that the state did not pursue having the trial court order DuBose to be held without possibility of release based on public safety concerns, but instead sought to have bail set at $1,500,000.[16] The majority pointed out that the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that:

[T]he court shall release the defendant on the least restrictive conditions that, in the discretion of the court, will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance in court, the protection or safety of any person or the community, and that the defendant will not obstruct the criminal justice process. If the court orders financial conditions of release, those financial conditions shall be related to the defendant’s risk of non-appearance, the seriousness of the offense, and the previous criminal record of the defendant.[17]

The majority found that, based on the rule outlined above, “public safety is not a consideration with respect to financial conditions of bail” and, as such, the appellate court did not “wrongly disregard the grandmother’s statement” when it determined that $1,500,000 was excessive based on DuBose’s financial situation. Accordingly, the majority concluded that the state’s second proposition of law had no merit.[18]

Justices Patrick DeWine, Pat Fischer, and Sharon Kennedy each separately dissented from the majority’s decision. All three argued that the majority was wrong to uphold the appellate court’s approach to reviewing the bail determination de novo. The dissenting justices noted that the Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure vest the trial court with broad discretion in setting bail and that such determinations should not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.[19]

Justice DeWine pointed out in his dissenting opinion that there are good reasons that “[o]ur Constitution and [Rules of Criminal Procedure] entrust bail decisions to trial judges.” He noted that the “typical trial judge has extensive experience in setting the conditions of release, making such decisions on a regular, often daily, basis.”[20] According to Justice DeWine, trial judges are best able to view the witnesses and weigh the credibility of their testimony. Moreover, Justice DeWine noted that trial judges are “far better equipped than appellate courts to actively monitor a defendant’s compliance with the terms of bail” and can “more quickly modify the conditions of release based on changed circumstances.”[21]

All three dissenters also expressed that the trial court acted within its discretion when it considered public safety concerns when setting the bail amount.[22] Justice DeWine stated that the majority’s holding that public safety may not be considered when setting bail “flies in the face” of court precedent and the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure.[23] DeWine emphasized his serious concerns with the majority opinion by saying “Make no mistake: what the majority does today will make Ohio communities less safe.”[24] He summed up his overall concerns with the decision:

In refusing to apply any deference to bail decisions made by trial judges, in refusing to ensure victims’ rights are protected, and in prohibiting a court from even considering public safety in making bail decisions, the majority departs from our rules, our precedent, and our Constitution. And, in doing so, it undermines the safety of our communities.[25]

Justice Michael Donnelly wrote a separate opinion concurring with the majority to specifically take issue with some of the claims made by the dissenters. He wrote:

Having spent 14 years as a trial-court judge and having set thousands of bonds, I am appalled by the brazen accusations made in some of the dissenting opinions that the justices joining the majority opinion are making Ohio less safe and disrespecting victims simply by telling our courts that they must follow the rules if they want to hold defendants in custody prior to trial without possibility of release before the trial.[26]

While the DuBose case certainly pushed the role of bail to the forefront of the debate over criminal justice reform in Ohio, it might not be the final word on the issue.[27] First, in response to the DuBose decision, the Ohio General Assembly passed a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution by the required three-fifths majority of each House, largely along partisan lines, with the Republicans voting in favor and the Democrats against.[28] The proposed amendment will appear on the general election statewide ballot in November and will go into effect if a majority of Ohio voters vote in favor of it.[29]  The proposed amendment would add the following provision to the Ohio Constitution:

When determining the amount of bail, the court shall consider public safety, including the seriousness of the offense, and a person’s criminal record, the likelihood a person will return to court, and any other factor the general assembly may prescribe.[30]

Additionally, Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, who was in the majority in the DuBose case, is retiring from the court at the end of the year.[31] Two sitting justices—Justice Jennifer Brunner, who joined the majority in DuBose, and Justice Kennedy, who dissented—are running to succeed O’Connor as chief justice.[32] Regardless of who wins, a vacancy will be created which will be filled by the governor.[33] Moreover, both of the other dissenters, Justices DeWine and Fischer, are up for reelection in November.[34]

With the proposed constitutional amendment and three seats on the Ohio Supreme Court all being on the ballot in November, the issue of bail reform will likely continue to be a focus of debate in the Buckeye State for the foreseeable future.

[1]  See Micah Derry & Claire Chevrier, Ohioans Overwhelmingly Support Criminal Justice and Bail Reforms,, March 24, 2021,
 See William J. Bratton & Rafael A. Mangual, ‘Bail Reform’ is Killing New Yorkers as Eric Adams Pushes for Change, Wall Street J., Feb. 16, 2022,; see also Paul Cassell & Richard Fowles, Does Bail Reform Increase Crime? An Empirical Assessment of the Public Safety Implications of Bail Reform in Cook County, Illinois, S.J. Quinney College of Law research paper No. 349 (2020), available at
[3] See David Forster, Ohio Supreme Court Bail Ruling Sparks Debate Over Public Safety and Penalizing the Poor, WOUB Public Media, Apr. 15, 2022,
[4] DuBose v. McGuffey, 2022-Ohio-8, slip op., available at
[5] Id. at 2.
[6] Id. at 2-3.
[7] Id. at 3.
[8] Id.
[9] DuBose v. McGuffey, 2021-Ohio-3815 (Ohio Ct. App.),
[10] DuBose, 2022-Ohio-8, slip op. at 5.
[11] Id. at 6.
[12] Id. at 7.
[13] Id. at 4-5.
[14] Ohio Const. art. I, sec. 9.
[15] DuBose, 2022-Ohio-8, slip op. at 8 (quoting Ohio Revised Code, Sec. 2937.222(B)).
[16] Id. at 8.
[17] Id at 8-9 (quoting Ohio Crim. R. 46(B)).
[18] DuBose, 2022-Ohio-8, slip op. at 9-10.
[19] Id. at 18-19 (Kennedy, J., dissenting), at 27 (Fischer, J., dissenting), at 31-34 (DeWine, J., dissenting).
[21] Id. at 33-34 (DeWine, J., dissenting).
[22] Id. at 22 (Kennedy, J., dissenting), at 27-28 (Fischer, J., dissenting), at 35-38 (DeWine, J., dissenting).
[23] Id. at 35 (DeWine, J., dissenting).
[24] Id. at 28.
[25] Id. at 39.
[26] Id. at 15 (Donnelly, J., concurring).
[27] See Forster, supra note 3.
[28] See Jim Gaines, Bail Change Will Be on Fall Ballot, Dayton Daily News, May 31, 2022,
[29] Ohio Const. art. XVI, sec. 01.
[30] Substitute House Joint Resolution 2 (134th Ohio General Assembly (2021-22)),
[31] See Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor Biography,
See also Marc Kovac, COVID, Sentencing Reform Among Focuses for Final Years of Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor’s Term, Columbus Dispatch, Dec. 29, 2020),
[32] See Brunner, Kennedy to Face Off in Ohio Chief Justice Race, Mount Vernon News, May 6, 2022, Justice Brunner has listed “Bail Reform” as part of her “Campaign Platform for Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court” on her campaign website. See
[33] Ohio Const. art. IV, sec. 13; see also Andy Chow, DeWine Supports Constitutional Amendment to Change Rules for Setting Bail, WKSU, Apr. 15, 2022,
[34] See Karen Kasler, Ohio Supreme Court Justices, Chief Justice Races Set for November Election, WKSU, May 3, 2022,



Amdt8.2.2 Modern Doctrine on Bail

Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Bail, which is basic to our system of law,1 is excessive in violation of the Eighth Amendment when it is set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated to ensure the asserted governmental interest.2 The issue of bail is only implicated when there is a direct government restraint on personal liberty, be it in a criminal case or a civil deportation proceeding.3 In Stack v. Boyle, the Supreme Court found a $50,000 bail to be excessive, given the defendants’ limited financial resources and the lack of evidence that they were a flight risk.4 The Court determined that the fixing of bail for any individual defendant must be based upon standards relevant to the purpose of assuring the presence of that defendant, and [u]nless this right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence . . . would lose its meaning.5

In United States v. Salerno, the Court upheld the Bail Reform Act of 1984 provisions regarding preventative detention against facial challenge under the Eighth Amendment. The function of bail, the Court explained, is limited neither to preventing flight of the defendant prior to trial nor to safeguarding a court’s role in adjudicating guilt or innocence.6 The Court held that Congress did not violate the Excessive Bail Clause by restricting bail eligibility for compelling interests such as public safety, and observed that the Clause says nothing about whether bail shall be available at all in a particular situation.7 The Court rejected the proposition that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the government from pursuing other admittedly compelling interests through regulation of pretrial release.8 The Court explained that [t]he only arguable substantive limitation of the Bail Clause is that the government’s proposed conditions of release or detention not be ‘excessive’ in light of the perceived evil.9 The Court determined that detention prior to trial of arrestees charged with serious felonies who are found after an adversary hearing to pose a threat to the safety of individuals or to the community which no condition of release can dispel satisfies this requirement.10

The Court further explained in Salerno that if the only asserted interest is to guarantee that the accused will stand trial and submit to sentence if found guilty, then bail must be set by a court at a sum designed to ensure that goal, and no more.11 To challenge bail as excessive, the Court held that an individual must move for a reduction, and, if that motion is denied, appeal to the Court of Appeals, and, if unsuccessful, appeal to the Supreme Court Justice sitting for that circuit.12 The Amendment is apparently inapplicable to postconviction release pending appeal, but the practice has apparently been to grant such releases.13

There is, however, no absolute right to bail in all cases.14 In a civil case, the Court held that the prohibition against excessive bail does not compel the allowance of bail in deportation cases and that the very language of the Amendment fails to say all arrests must be bailable.15 Moreover, although the Court has not explicitly stated such, the Court has assumed that the Eight Amendment’s proscription of excessive bail . . . [applies] to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.16


  1.  Jump to essay-1Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357, 484 (1971).
  2.  Jump to essay-2Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 5 (1951). The Court explained that the fixing of bail for any individual defendant must be based upon standards relevant to the purpose of assuring the presence of that defendant. Id.
  3.  Jump to essay-3Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 263 n.3 (1989) (explaining that the Bail Clause guards against the potential for governmental abuse).
  4.  Jump to essay-4Id. at 6–7.
  5.  Jump to essay-5Id. at 4–5.
  6.  Jump to essay-6United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 754–55 (1987).
  7.  Jump to essay-7Id. at 752–53.
  8.  Jump to essay-8481 U.S. at 753.
  9.  Jump to essay-9481 U.S. at 754.
  10.  Jump to essay-10481 U.S. at 755. The Court also ruled that there was no violation of due process, the governmental objective being legitimate and there being a number of procedural safeguards (detention applies only to serious crimes, the arrestee is entitled to a prompt hearing, the length of detention is limited, and detainees must be housed apart from criminals). Id.
  11.  Jump to essay-11Salerno481 U.S. at 754.
  12.  Jump to essay-12Boyle342 U.S. at 6–7.
  13.  Jump to essay-13Hudson v. Parker156 U.S. 277 (1895).
  14.  Jump to essay-14Id. at 753.
  15.  Jump to essay-15Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 544–46 (1952) (explaining that the Eighth Amendment has not prevented Congress from defining the classes of cases in which bail shall be allowed in this country and in criminal cases bail is not compulsory where the punishment may be death).
  16.  Jump to essay-16Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357, 484 (1971); see Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701, 707 (2014) (The Eighth Amendment provides that ‘excessive bail shall be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.’ The Fourteenth Amendment applies those restrictions to the States.); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 419 (2008) (The Eighth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that ‘[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.’); see also Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (1984) (upholding under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a state statute providing for preventive detention of juveniles).