He had a constitutional right to it. He's presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.

Agreed, I'd like to see SBF prosecuted as much as anyone else, but I want it to be a legal trial. His statements should be accepted in the most generous possible light, and the case against him should be ironclad enough to hold. (Otherwise there isn't much point to the justice system existing at large).

There isn't much point to the justice system if a rich dude can give them an iou for bond. Do you think if a poor person got 2500 bond they could give the court 4$ and and a im good for the rest of it?

There's no constitutional right - people accused of murder are not (often) released on bail. The 8th Amendment only applies to bail amounts when bail is granted. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excessive_Bail_Clause#Preventi...

He has a constitutional protection from cruel and unusual punishment. If there's no reason to believe he's dangerous to society, and he's presumed innocent, and we can use a bond to ensure he'll appear, then there's no reason to hold him.

If staying in jail without bail were considered "cruel and unusual punishment", then it would be unconstitutional for anyone to be kept in jail.

Cruel and unusual punishment does not apply here, and isn't really clearly defined regardless.

I personally agree that not holding him is good fwiw.

However, it also is horribly inconsistent. People who are guilty of driving while black, or non-violent drug offenses, or so on, are given much less generous treatment when it comes to unsecured bail, and when it comes to evaluating if they're a flight risk.

> People who are guilty of driving while black, or non-violent drug offenses, or so on, are given much less generous treatment when it comes to unsecured bail

There's several factors at work here, but the most significant is that most offenders, especially most low-level offenders, are charged in state systems, and most (but not all, and this is changing, erratically) of the state systems rely much more heavily on financial conditions, and on secured bonds as the primary condition, in part due to very intense lobbying by the bail bonds industry to state governments (both directly and using astroturf groups to lobby the citizenry when their position is threatened.)

> and we can use a bond to ensure he'll appear

That is really the crux of the matter, and where people are (reasonably) disagreeing with you. Does a $4M bond (from his parents' assets, not his) and a $246M IOU really ensure SBF will show up in court rather than fleeing?

What's the reasoning why it wouldn't, and why are we forgetting that he's also wearing an ankle monitor?

There are a lot of people building their understanding of this situation out of breathless headlines and misleading tweets. And I think there's an element of something like, "if he escapes, that means he really was a genius all along, and now I feel a little less bad for losing my money/believing in him".

An ankle monitor doesn't do anything to prevent you from fleeing, since it can be removed with any number of readily available tools.

I'm sure it is possible to defeat an ankle monitor in some way, but I really doubt simply knocking it off will work (not to say you can't knock out off, but that this will be detected & interpreted as an escape attempt). The police aren't stupid.

Assuming someone is paying attention: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/erry-2018/12/9b5b1eff724150/...

Having someone pay attention is also all that you need to prevent the world's most wanted man from hanging himself in a federal prison in Manhattan.

I.e., scissors.

technically he has a protection from punishment, period, without due process of law.

For anyone wanting more information on the 8th amendment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt8-2-2/ALD...

States also have their own amendments that can differ on bail well.

That's not really an answer. Many people are held without bond. The answer is he's from a well off family so he has good lawyers.

People held without bond are in that situation for (presumably) extraordinary circumstances. Long history of violent behavior, huge flight risk.

This is a punk (he is a prick) who wouldn't know how to wield a butter knife. He agreed not to have an extradition hearing in the Bahamas. He's hardly a danger to others or a flight risk.

No, he doesn't. If he was some random drug dealer that couldn't make bail he'd wait in jail for trial. The same rules should apply to him. Put up $25m (10%) or wait in jail. The bail amount was set at $250m because he is a substantial flight risk. Sitting in jail awaiting trial is not cruel or unusual. It's extremely common.

No, people who commit street level crimes should be given the same grace he's receiving.

Denying bail because we think this guy is extra guilty (as opposed to, say, because he has a history of domestic abuse, and releasing him could put people at risk) would be cruel and unusual, because it would be discretionary.

Parent is not saying to keep him in jail because he’s “extra guilty.” They’re saying keep him in jail because he can’t pay bail. Basically treat him like everyone else.

The comment you are replying to did not say that he should be denied bail. Only that the rules should apply to him too. 10% is the most common requirement, he didn't meet it.

Where are you getting that "10% is the most common requirement"? I think you may be confusing the common _non-refundable_ amount charged by private bail bondsmen for much smaller bails with an actual court requirement for collateral. Is there a published standard you could point to that shows the amount of collateral typically required by US courts for bails of this size?

The judge wanted to make headlines with a massive bail demand, but was willing to agree to a reasonable deal.