True, but it's more likely they're guilty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#cite_note-5

oh dear.

the presumption of innocence is an international human right. justice-by-statistics is an extremely bad idea.

At the core of this is the old, philosophical question of, "Is it better to let one hundred criminals go free if it means not wrongfully convicting one innocent man?"

Considering that we are talking about bail (meaning 1-2 weeks in jail, not a lifetime in prison) and we have justice systems that are right 80-90% of the time, I lean towards the more pragmatic statistical approach.

The "internationally recognized human right" thing seems like a thought terminating cliche, not sure why that should be the end of the discussion.

So someone should have to spend 1-2 weeks in jail, thus losing their job, losing their ability to pay rent, so likely losing their house, despite the fact that it has not been proven that they've done anything?

It's not always 1-2 weeks, it can be months.

i do not think you understand the reality of someone living, for instance, paycheck-to-paycheck. "1-2 weeks in jail", which you seem to suggest is not that big of a deal, is a lost job and unpaid rent, to say nothing of other responsibilities (for instance, children or pets). does this seem like a reasonable consequence for being merely accused of a crime?

i brought up the human rights angle because your line of thought appears to run counter to article 11 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights...but it's interesting that you can dismiss that by calling it a "cliche".

So what if my thoughts run counter to some UN document? It's interesting that you evoke it in such a religious manner, as if that alone should shut out any discussion.

So what if your thoughts run counter to the universal declaration of human rights? Are you serious?

That's the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” not “UN Declaration of Human Rights”.