So we've just removed the incentive for an accused person to show up to court? Bail serves a purpose.

However the amounts of bail could be recalculated to be relevant to a specific prisoner's condition. A million dollar bail to a poor person might as well be 100 billion which is the same as no bail. That same bail to a rich person would be the equivalent to a $1000 bail to a poor person.

So bail shouldn't be eliminated but scaled appropriately to the financial situation of the prisoner.

The US is unusual in first-world countries in having this system. England&Wales releases most of its summary (US: misdemeanor) suspects without bail surety. Indictable (US: felony) offences are 40% not bailed at all but remanded, usually because these offences involve violence.

The UK system also allows another person to stand as guarantor without having to put the money up front, which means there's none of the short term loan shark business of "bail bondsmen".

Making bail a multiple of something like gross total income and remove the need for the judge to set a dollar amount should help. So basically instead of saying "Bail is set at $50000" the judge can just say "bail is set at X month income or Y% of net worth" without having to take any consideration of the accused financial situation into account . Of course you'll probably need some minimums and few other tweaks, but on the whole it feels like a better method.

Prefer the UK system, of which versions seems to work well in other countries too. The US has a strange love affair with using money to solve problems that ultimately require community involvement and social bonds to solve. Brings to mind the Hunter S. Thompson analogy that the quintessential American rôle is that of a used car salesman.