The UK system makes very little use of cash bail, recognising that it's pointless for petty crimes and dangerous for violent ones, but one of the most famous recent cases of a big bail bond was .. Julian Assange, who cost his supporters £93,000 by skipping bail. The process of skipping bail was a criminal offence for which he has been jailed. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange...
It's pretty obvious. Look at the severity of the crime. If it's severe enough detain them until trial. If not then release them. Why do you think the ability to release drug lords is a necessary feature of your justice system?
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but cash bails are pretty rare globally, and the normal way of going about this is: if you are dangerous/risk interfering with the investigation/a flight risk (Meaning not just "not show up" but actually leave the country, such as foreign citizens), then you await trial in jail. If you are not, then you don't.
Has this been studied?
>Has this been studied?
Actually, it has. In fact, the linked essay goes into some significant detail about it.
Perhaps you might consider reading it.
Yes, I did. And to make sure we're talking about the same thing, the article is: https://arcdigital.media/abolish-the-cash-bail-system-3cf647...
Here's the section I mentioned:
"It is also questionable whether the cash bail system does a better job guaranteeing individuals will appear in court. Washington, D.C. was an early pioneer in pretrial reform, eliminating secured money bail and bolstering pretrial services in 1992. The results have been extraordinary. Today, it releases 94 percent of those accused for crimes as they await a court hearing, and 91 percent of them appear in court for their trial. New Jersey likewise passed a suite of criminal justice reforms in 2016 that essentially eliminated cash bail and created a new pretrial services program. A year after the reforms were implemented, 95 percent of defendants were released pretrial and 89 percent of them appeared at their trial dates. These rates of appearance for trial are similar to, or better than, the rates of appearance before the reforms were implemented. It would appear, then, that the cash bail system is not required to guarantee a high rate of court compliance nor does it do better than the alternatives."
And here are the links that were embedded in the section above supporting the author's assertions:
http://cjpp.law.harvard.edu/assets/BailReform_WEB.pdf
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/02/644085158/what-changed-after-...
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/criminal-justice/rep...
https://www.njcourts.gov/courts/assets/criminal/2018cjrannua...
Unless a different payment scheme were implemented for a cash bond alternative, poor defendants would still likely end up in jail due to inability to pay for their ankle monitors.
Bail is in fact supposed to be a function of your financial status, and the severity of the crime.
What do you suggest as an alternative to bail bonds? Maybe ankle monitors for those awaiting trial?
I think maybe the thing that should most change is outlawing bail bondsmen. It seems like they distort the market for bail bonds significantly and may be causing some/most of the problems with bail, and at the same time this system empowers private individuals with duties that should be the responsibility of the state (finding and detaining people who didn't show up to court).