---
title: Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XVII. Bail; fines; punishment; arrest, abuse of prisoners.
collection: code
id: ga-const:art-i-sec-i-para-xvii
cite_as: Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XVII
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xvii
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xvii.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xvii/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/2ga-const-(v2)-2016-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=f5de823e_0#page=615
date: 2016
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/index.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xvi.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xviii.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
omitted: notes
omitted_chars: 26624
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xvii.md?notes=all&start=11369
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
current_through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly
heading_path: CONSTITUTION OF THE / BILL OF RIGHTS / RIGHTS OF PERSONS
---

# Ga. Const. Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XVII. Bail; fines; punishment; arrest, abuse of prisoners.

A constitution provision shown as in force is in force as printed in the volume. A court decision can make a printed provision unenforceable without changing the volume, and the volume does not record that.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted; nor shall any person be abused in being arrested, while under arrest, or in prison.

## Cross References

Bail and punishment, U.S. Const., amend. 8. Cruel and unusual punishment, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XXI and § 38-2-1055. Bail, §§ 5-4-20, 5-6-45, 5-7-5, 17-6-1 et seq., 17-7-24, and 17-13-36. Pauper’s bail, § 5-4-20. Rights of one refused bail, § 17-7-50. Capital punishment, §§ 17-10-30 and 17-10-38. Abuse of prisoners, §§ 42-4-5 and 42-5-58.

## Law Reviews

For article, ‘‘The Georgia Bill of Rights: Dead or Alive?,’’ see 34 Emory L.J. 341 (1985). For annual survey on criminal law and procedure, see 42 Mercer L. Rev. 141 (1990). For survey of 1995 Eleventh Circuit cases on constitutional criminal procedure, see 47 Mercer L. Rev. 765 (1996). For article, ‘‘Campbell v. Georgia: Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Survives Separation of Power Attacks, Remaining a Viable Option for the Legislature in Its War on Crime,’’ see 17 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 637 (2001). For annual survey of death penalty law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 479 (2006). For annual survey of death penalty law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 111 (2006).

For note, ‘‘Communist Aliens and the Right to Bail,’’ see 2 J. of Pub. L. 165 (1953). For note discussing constitutional problems with the bail system, see 4 Ga. St. B.J. 278 (1967). For note, ‘‘Bail in Georgia: Elimination of ‘Double Bonding’ — A Partially Solved Problem,’’ see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 220 (1971). For note, ‘‘Behind Closed Doors: An Empirical Inquiry Into the Nature of Prison Discipline in Georgia,’’ see 8 Ga. L. Rev. 919 (1974). For note, ‘‘Not So Shocking: The Death of the Electric Chair in Georgia at the Hands of the Georgia Supreme Court in Dawson v. State,’’ see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 1695 (2002).

For comment on Burger v. State, 118 Ga. App. 328, 163 S.E.2d 333 (1968), see 5 Ga. St. B.J. 384 (1969).

## 1976 Constitution.

Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XIV.

## Acceptable Fines.

It is not an excessive fine to require the perpetrator of fraud to pay double the amount of the debt sought to be evaded by the fraudulent act. Conley v. State, 85 Ga. 348, 11 S.E. 659 (1890); Hathcock v. State, 88 Ga. 91, 13 S.E. 959 (1891).

## Excessive Damages.

In an action against a truck manufacturer, a punitive damages award of $2 million was not so excessive as to violate the due process clauses of the Georgia and United States Constitutions, the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the excessive fines clause of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XVII. Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Conkle, 263 Ga. 539, 436 S.E.2d 635 (1993).

Duty of police to refrain from un-

## Lawfully Assaulting or Killing Prisoner.

It is the duty of an arresting officer who has a person under arrest for a violation of law to refrain from unlawfully assaulting or killing the prisoner. Powell v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 45 Ga. App. 88, 163 S.E. 239 (1932).

## Actions of Deputy at Security Checkpoint.

In a suit based on the actions of a deputy sheriff at a courthouse security checkpoint, official immunity barred the plaintiff attorney’s battery claim under the Georgia Constitution because the summary judgment evidence did not show actual malice or intent to cause injury. West v. Davis, 767 F.3d 1063 (11th Cir. 2014).

Imposition of consecutive sentence to replace concurrent sentence may

## Be Impermissible.

The imposition of a new sentence to be served consecutively to a sentence on a prior conviction, in place of a vacated sentence that was to be served concurrently with the sentence on that prior conviction, may constitute an impermissible harsher punishment. Thomas v. State, 150 Ga. App. 341, 258 S.E.2d 28 (1979).

## Contempt Sentence Imposed on Defendant Contrary to Spirit of Law.

When, in sentencing the defendant for contempt of court for failure to obey a court order to return the daughter to custody of the wife after a one-day visitation, the court imposed a sentence for each technical contempt, and the court rendered but one judgment, a fine of $11,900.00 and confinement in jail for over three years, the sentence is contrary to the spirit of the law of the state and against the state’s policy since the law limits the punishment for a single contempt to the maximum of $200.00 and 20 days in jail, no matter how malicious, how flagrant, and how iniquitous the act of contempt might be. Kenimer v. State ex rel. Webb, 81 Ga. App. 437, 59 S.E.2d 296 (1950), later appeal, 83 Ga. App. 264, 63 S.E.2d 280 (1951).

## Death Penalty Instructions Must Include Life Sentence Alternative.

It is error to provide a sentencing phase instruction in a death penalty case which fails to explain that a life sentence may be recommended even in the presence of statutory aggravating circumstances. Stynchcombe v. Floyd, 252 Ga. 113, 311 S.E.2d 828 (1984). tence which is authorized under its own laws merely because of the effects of another state’s judicial processes, brought about by the operation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. Cobb v. State, 244 Ga. 344, 260 S.E.2d 60 (1979).

## State Need Not Reduce Capital sen-Forfeiture of Property.

Case involving the forfeiture of 5.1 acres of land and a dwelling house on the basis of the discovery of 8.8 ounces of marijuana would be remanded to the trial court for consideration in light of the decision in Thorp v. State, 264 Ga. 712, 450 S.E.2d 416 (1994). Evans v. State, 217 Ga. App. 646, 458 S.E.2d 859 (1995).

Cited in Payne v. State, 180 Ga. 609, 180 S.E. 130 (1935); Crosby v. Courson, 181 Ga. 475, 182 S.E. 590 (1935); McGraw v. State, 85 Ga. App. 857, 70 S.E.2d 141 (1952); Massey v. State, 220 Ga. 883, 142 S.E.2d 832 (1965); Massey v. State, 222 Ga. 143, 149 S.E.2d 118 (1966); Reid v. State, 116 Ga. App. 640, 158 S.E.2d 461 (1967); Strozier v. State, 116 Ga. App. 777, 159 S.E.2d 182 (1967); Irwin v. Arrendale, 117 Ga. App. 1, 159 S.E.2d 719 (1967); Stuart v. State, 117 Ga. App. 183, 160 S.E.2d 409 (1968); Grice v. State, 224 Ga. 376, 162 S.E.2d 432 (1968); Henderson v. Dutton, 397 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1968); Wilson v. Kelley, 294 F. Supp. 1005 (N.D. Ga. 1968); Cushway v. State Bar, 120 Ga. App. 371, 170 S.E.2d 732 (1969); Goodine v. Griffin, 309 F. Supp. 590 (S.D. Ga. 1970); Callahan v. State, 229 Ga. 737, 194 S.E.2d 431 (1972); Reed v. State, 134 Ga. App. 47, 213 S.E.2d 147 (1975); Crawford v. State, 236 Ga. 491, 224 S.E.2d 365 (1976); Gunn v. State, 150 Ga. 730, 257 S.E.2d 538 (1979); Southerland v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 293 Ga. App. 56, 666 S.E.2d 383 (2008).

Arrest

## Use of Choke-hold Resulted in Officer’s Suspension.

Police officer was properly suspended for using a choke-hold on a handcuffed suspect in an attempt to prevent the suspect from swallowing narcotics in violation of department rules; there was nothing in Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XIII, to suggest that because the use of a choke-hold was reasonable under some circumstances, the officer had the right to use it. Mercure v. City of Atlanta Civil Service Board, 327 Ga. App. 840, 761 S.E.2d 393 (2014).

Bail

This paragraph does not determine any right to bail, or in what cases it exists. Vanderford v. Brand, 126 Ga. 67, 54 S.E. 822, 9 Ann. Cas. 617 (1906).

Discretion of court in setting bail

## Amount.

The amount of bail to be assessed in each criminal case is left to the sound legal discretion of the court required to fix it and, in the absence of a flagrant abuse of such discretionary power, the court’s action will not be controlled. Reid v. Perkerson, 207 Ga. 27, 60 S.E.2d 151 (1950).

Entitlement to bail as matter of

## Right.

The accused in all criminal cases less than capital felonies, before trial, is entitled to bail, at least twice, as a matter of right and not as a matter of discretion. Reid v. Perkerson, 207 Ga. 27, 60 S.E.2d 151 (1950). fusal to grant bail, and in such a case habeas corpus is an available and appropriate remedy for relief. Reid v. Perkerson, 207 Ga. 27, 60 S.E.2d 151 (1950).

Excessive bail prohibitions apply

## Excessive Bail Is Equivalent of Rein Misdemeanor Cases After Conviction.

The constitutional prohibitions against excessive bail set forth in U.S. Const., amend. 8 and this paragraph apply in misdemeanor cases after conviction. Jones v. Grimes, 219 Ga. 585, 134 S.E.2d 790 (1964).

$100,000 bail in cocaine case held

## Not Excessive.

Setting bail in the total amount of $100,000 in a case involving two charges of selling crack cocaine was not excessive when the trial judge was apprised of the defendant’s lengthy residency in the community and the defendant’s financial status, and weighed these factors against the serious nature and potential consequences of the charges. Mayfield v. State, 198 Ga. App. 252, 401 S.E.2d 297 (1990).

$250,000 bail in murder case held

## Not Excessive.

In a prosecution for murder, based upon the seriousness of the offense charged and the likelihood that defendant would not appear at trial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in Bail (Cont’d) holding that bail of $250,000, as originally set, was not excessive. Mullinax v. State, 271 Ga. 112, 515 S.E.2d 839 (1999).

Bail in the amount of $750,000 was not excessive since the defendant had prior felony convictions and the trial court’s decision to increase bail at this habeas proceeding was based on other information not available at the first hearing. Pullin v. Dorsey, 271 Ga. 882, 525 S.E.2d 87 (2000).

Waiver of Fourth Amendment

## Rights Proper as Condition of Bail.

Waiver by the defendant, while free on bond for drug offenses, of rights under U.S. Const., amend. 4 and Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XIII as a bond condition, was constitutional under U.S. Const., amend. 8 and Ga. Const. 1983,Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XVII; it was a reasonable exercise of the trial court’s function of balancing the rights of the accused with public safety interests. Rocco v. State, 267 Ga. App. 900, 601 S.E.2d 189 (2004).

Denial of bail not an abuse of dis-

## Cretion Nor Grounds for Habeas Petition.

Petitioner charged with 16 counts of violating the Georgia RICO Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1, securities fraud, and theft, who owned no assets in the United States and had allegedly funneled significant assets to Belize, where the petitioner traveled frequently, was not entitled to bail as of right under O.C.G.A. § 17-6-1(a), Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para. XVII, or U.S. Const., amend. VIII. The denial of bail was not an abuse of discretion, and petitioner was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. Constantino v. Warren, 285 Ga. 851, 684 S.E.2d 601 (2009).

Fines

## Provisions of Tort Reform Act Unconstitutional.

Provisions of the Tort Reform Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1, relating to punitive damages, violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions, violated the excessive fines provisions of both constitutions, and violated the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution. McBride v. GMC, 737 F. Supp. 1563 (M.D. Ga. 1990).

Fine did not violate defendant’s

## Constitutional Rights.

When the defendant was convicted of trafficking cocaine in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-13-31 and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and fined $100,000, the fine was not out of proportion to the severity of the crime and not constitutionally infirm either because of the fine’s mandatory nature or the fine’s amount. Wyatt v. State, 259 Ga. 208, 378 S.E.2d 690 (1989).


> The printed notes continue for 26,624 more characters, not shown here. Continue at https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-i-sec-i-para-xvii.md?notes=all&start=11369