Here's a data point...Harris county TX let a capital murder suspect out on some ludicrously low bond (9K, which meant he only spent 900 dollars to get out). Here's a description of the suspects:

"They killed two people, and they also put a gun to a young mother with a 2-month-old, they put a gun to her head as well," said Andy Kahan with Crime Stoppers.

Here's a guy in Harris county that's committed multiple capital murders and bonded out each time:

https://www.khou.com/article/news/crime/capital-murder-suspe...

That is psychopathy in the justice system.

This has nothing to do with bail though? The point of bail is to ensure the suspect shows up to court appearances. The use of bail as a way to force remanding is essentially a multi-pronged tax on poorer defendants (as they either need a loan to post bail, or have to suffer the loss of income and psychological damage from detention).

If the prosecution believes the accused is a danger to society, they should argue for remanding on those grounds, not ask for bails which have no actual relation to the accused’s likelihood of showing up.

Your language assumes guilt first , He is a murder suspect and alleged to have committed murders[1] until is proven guilty that distinction is important .

The prosecution should have asked for higher bail if he was further threat to society or a flight risk not because the crimes were heinous, if they failed to prove it, that is on them.

Far too easily we judge people as a society quickly and usually with strong racial bias.

1% of America is incarcerated far higher than any other developed economy. I don’t think we are predisposed to crime more than others perhaps we need to think how we ended up here ?

[1] he probably did I am not arguing the facts of the case, keep in mind unlike civil cases where balance of probabilities is the deciding factor in criminal cases beyond reasonable doubt

> The prosecution should have asked for higher bail if he was further threat to society

If he is a risk to society that won't change however much money he pays. A millionaire murderer isn't less dangerous than a minimum wage one.

Judges are allowed to deny bail based on dangerousness. That's the appropriate tool here, not setting a high dollar number.

> The prosecution should have asked for higher bail if he was further threat to society or

No. Bail shouldn't ever be excessive... if it's purpose is to ensure that they show for trial, then it can only be so high that the defendant should work towards avoiding forfeit. By definition, it must be affordable to them, if only barely so.

It shouldn't be used to keep someone detained. In such cases, prosecutors should have the balls to demand they not be offered bail, and judges the same to withhold it.

Every time a judge sets some ridiculous bail (I think I've personally heard amounts approaching eight digits and this for non-billionaires), it further conditions everyone including the public that high amounts are justifiable, it normalizes it.

Given our reliance on the parasitic bail bonding industry, it turns these amounts into either a pre-conviction fine, buying their way out of detainment, or judicial/prosecutorial incompetence masquerading as prudence.

Avoiding forfeiture works by assuming a rational frame of mind . Someone bent on revenge or societal harm or will not be stopped because the money will be forfeit .

Perhaps bail should be denied then as courts have the power to do , but setting it high is not that different from denying .

> Here's a guy in Harris county that's committed multiple capital murders and bonded out each time:

Your implied timeline is wrong here. The two (alleged) murders happened in May and June 2021. He was arrested for the first in October 2021 and posted bond in November 2021. Then he was arrested for the second - which happened before the first bond, remember - in December 2021 and posted the bond for that in March 2022. At no time (that we know of) did he commit murder whilst out on bond.