Why is it a problem?

Do they get bail a second time?

Do you think they wouldn't reoffend if they weren't released until after they are punished?

If they do two crimes and get two sentences, does it matter if that's AABB or ABAB?

Well, because there are now e.g. two cases of murder instead of only one, and the second one was entirely preventable? Oh, right, the law is not about the populace's lives and well-being, how silly of me to assume that.

You didn't answer my questions. Do you think it would decrease the odds of reoffending if they didn't get bail?

If it doesn't, then it's two crimes either way, just timed differently. And after the policy settled in it would have negligible impact on the crime rate.

Also if you're doing sentencing for two crimes at once you can give a longer punishment for the first crime and get them off the street longer.

Yes, it would decrease the odds, provided that after walking out of jail the probability of a criminal to commit a crime (that includes his intent to reoffend but also possible changes in the environment that happened during his time in jail that reduce his possibilities to do so) is less than before walking in, because they wouldn't get the chance to reoffend immediately.

I don't assume that someone coming out of a sentence is less likely to commit a crime. Isn't it often the opposite, because the US is so bad at rehabilitation?

Then you should argue for "shoot at sight" or "lifetime sentences/electric chair for everything", shouldn't you?

But no, the probability does decreases since not every ex-jailed becomes a repeated offender; also, some people die during the sentence... the probability does go down, for many small reasons compounded together.

> Then you should argue for "shoot at sight" or "lifetime sentences/electric chair for everything", shouldn't you?

Not unless I'm a robot programmed to prevent recidivism at all costs. Why are you even asking this?

> But no, the probability does decreases since not every ex-jailed becomes a repeated offender

...and not everyone released before their trial becomes a repeat offender.

> some people die during the sentence

Is that a significant effect? I don't think most sentences are long enough for that to make a big difference, and I don't think preventing a single crime per lifetime, at most, is enough reason to keep people locked up for the lengthy pre-trial process.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I assume that the original comment was about how someone can get could pretty much red-handed for battery and assault/home violence but then instead of getting put into pre-trial/provisional detention (yes, you can get locked up even before being judged guilty, outrageous), they are just allowed to go because eh, why bother.

When you say "just allowed to go", you mean until the trial, right?

Because otherwise we're talking about completely different scenarios.

But if there is still a trial I don't see how "why bother" makes sense...

How significant is that problem? As far as I am aware

* Not allowing bail for people at high risk of reoffending or flight is already allowed

* Reoffending while waiting on trial or out on bail is rare

On the other hand there seems to be a huge problem in the US of people being detained for long times without a trial.

I could run the actual statistics for my district’s Court and tell you the percentage of reoffending while on bond, but in my experience a number approaching 40%, of people out on felony bonds, are re-arrested for additional felony conduct.

It's also a problem to put people in jail without a trial.