Your heuristic is flawed. The pool of defendants with pending charges who were granted pre-trial home detention are going to be disproportionately non-violent, first-time offenders compared to those denied bail or with prohibitively large amounts.

Meaning an error like this harms innocent people wrongly accused more than the stereotypically hardened repeat offenders you imagine to be undeserving of your sympathy and presumed guilty.

> non-violent, first-time offenders

Non-violent, first-time offenders don't get ankle monitors. But thank you for highlighting my point.

They absolutely can, depending on the jurisdiction. I saw plenty of cases out of Atlanta with drug possession cases with no prior history getting an ankle monitor, back when they were live streaming bond hearings from Rice street.

You do not get an ankle monitor for misdemeanour possession as a first time offender, in Atlanta or anywhere else.

Like, actual lol mate.

What on earth is this claim? Are you sure you’re on top of Fulton County’s 1500-person ankle monitoring program, and the push to reduce jail overcrowding? Have you really been tracking the national trend to introduce ankle monitors for pre-trial defendants who would have been simply released on recognizance?

Right, because only guilty people become involved with the justice system.

Not at all. They're remarkably similar. What differs is our cost:benefit analysis of closing off this errata.

Yours (inferred) is "Too Much : Zero".

Given that those are terminal values it would challenging for literally-any-other-view not to diverge from yours, on this.

They are innocent until they’re proven guilty.