I agree that there are trade-offs, but I don't find this argument persuasive.<p>Why is setting a high bail amount better than not releasing people? They're meant to be functionally equivalent except when someone can somehow manage to scrounge a lot of cash together.<p>I am very curious what motivations judges have for returning to this system of unaffordable bonds though.<p>He doesn't really spell it out, but I could imagine non-cash release having issues with reappearance or reoffence, but if that's the case you want to dig into the details, not just hand wave about it.
I'm considered a violent felon by the state of CA because I handed a bank teller a note politely asking them to follow their training and hand over their cash. after my last arrest the DA asked to raise my bail from 100k to 150k because they hadn't considered my strike when they initially set the bail amount.<p>not being able to bail out is more than a minor inconvenience.... people lose jobs, miss rent, get evicted and lose <i>everything</i> while being presumed innocent.