It is sad, because the logic breaks down immediately. Like you say, the fault isn't the amount of bail set, the fault is in determining that a person was safe to let out at any price. And sometimes, sadly, that's going to be a fault made, but for all the examples given, it is never about the amount of the bail.
It is sad, because the logic breaks down immediately. Like you say, the fault isn't the amount of bail set, the fault is in determining that a person was safe to let out at any price. And sometimes, sadly, that's going to be a fault made, but for all the examples given, it is never about the amount of the bail.
What should actually offend people is the concept of really high bail amounts for dangerous people. Oh, you're accused of attacking three people in Walmart with a knife, $1M bail! So you're telling me that if that guy was rich enough you're okay with putting all of us at risk by letting him out because...money?
The public's safety is one goal, compelling appearance in court is another. From that standpoint, the rich should have bail set high enough that running isn't an option.
To me, that's the flight risk question, which comes after the safety question. If safety is in question, no bail. If flight risk is a question, then perhaps bail can considered (though for some, there is no price too high).
It really is hard to parse the concept of high dollar bail any other way. I mean, I suppose you could add in, "if you're rich enough, you can have a do over on running and hiding."
It is sad, because the logic breaks down immediately. Like you say, the fault isn't the amount of bail set, the fault is in determining that a person was safe to let out at any price. And sometimes, sadly, that's going to be a fault made, but for all the examples given, it is never about the amount of the bail.
What should actually offend people is the concept of really high bail amounts for dangerous people. Oh, you're accused of attacking three people in Walmart with a knife, $1M bail! So you're telling me that if that guy was rich enough you're okay with putting all of us at risk by letting him out because...money?
The public's safety is one goal, compelling appearance in court is another. From that standpoint, the rich should have bail set high enough that running isn't an option.
To me, that's the flight risk question, which comes after the safety question. If safety is in question, no bail. If flight risk is a question, then perhaps bail can considered (though for some, there is no price too high).
Yes? I think that is the answer.
It really is hard to parse the concept of high dollar bail any other way. I mean, I suppose you could add in, "if you're rich enough, you can have a do over on running and hiding."