As allluded to above, bail has only one objective, and that is to give a defendant an incentive to show up for Court as opposed to ignoring his or her case, or worse, fleeing.

I believe that is wrong. The purpose of bail is to save the state the cost of housing someone who is probably guilty of a crime but is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.

The legal "presumption" of innocence is just that - a legal presumption. It is not a factual judgment or a basis for deciding whether a dangerous felon should be allowed to walk the streets. If assuring appearance were the only objective, no one would ever be denied bail for any reason other than flight risk. But that's not the case. (What makes a percentage "small"?)

I would have no problem waiving bail for people otherwise eligible for it if (i) a significant reward is available to bounty hunters who track them down when they flee, and (ii) when the bounty hunter catches them, the penalty for not showing up for trial is severe. Those how have the means can post bond and pay for the privilege of being hunted down. The poor can be hunted on the state's nickle. That's just progressive taxation.

BTW, I enjoy your writing and often agree with you. Just not this time.