[nkw]

> Because my life is fucked worse than it already is if I don't show up.

This is already the case, but surprisingly people (including those accused of crimes) do not always make choices which are in their long-term self interest.

> If that's not the case, then that's almost the working definition of "flight risk", and you don't release them for any amount of money.

So how do you determine who is a "flight risk"? Past FTA? Past convictions? Don't own property? No family ties to community? From the wrong part of town? Wrong skin color? These are the types of things that will end up going into detention decisions when you take the posting of security off the table and start trying to decide who is a "flight risk". The reason we have our bail system, including in many places a constitutional right to bail for non-capital offenses, is before that Courts would simply deny bail willy-nilly for certain crimes or people they didn't like.

[mikestew]

It's not always the case that it's worse if you don't show up. As an extreme example, if you're already facing life, running isn't going to make that worse (they're not going to execute you for skipping bail). On the other extreme, notice we don't have to post bail for a traffic ticket. However, if I don't show, there's now a warrant for my arrest. I was in no danger of going to jail if I showed up for my traffic hearing, but I'm most definitely going to jail (even if only briefly) if I'm pulled over with an outstanding warrant.

But let's go with your thinking. Let's use money, instead of those factors in your second paragraph. But you know what having money for bail might mean? You own property, have family ties to the community, are from the right part of town, and statistically probably have the right skin color. I mean, I see where you're going with this, but in the end I think it's a wash. You've either got money, or you are found pleasing to the judge's eye, and either way it means you're likely white and wealthy.

So I don't know what the solution is. But as others have commented, the UK seems to get away without having to post money for bail (though some have pointed out the exact problems you worry about).

[rayiner]

> I was in no danger of going to jail if I showed up for my traffic hearing, but I'm most definitely going to jail (even if only briefly) if I'm pulled over with an outstanding warrant.

And yet, people skipping court dates for traffic violations is extremely prevalent. In many areas, there are varying degrees of enforcement of failure to appear arrest warrants because of how common they are. (They'll have like amnesty days and stuff like that to encourage people to appear.)

The basic problem is that poor people have very little to lose by not showing up to court.

[dragonwriter]

> On the other extreme, notice we don't have to post bail for a traffic ticket.

At least in CA, the money you pay before or instead of trial on a traffic ticket is a default bail, and you have the option of pleading no contest and forfeiting the bail as your fine, or you can contest the ticket. If you contest the ticket, at your arraignment you will be assessed for the need for and amount, if any, bail much as for any other offense.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/8452.htm

[dragonwriter]

> So how do you determine who is a "flight risk"?

Since that's expressly a factor in deciding on whether to grant money bail and in what amount, that's not a new problem that eliminating money bail would raise, and money bail is (on top of all it's other problems)) imposingntial costs on different defendants people arbitrarily if we don't already have a reasonable solution.

So you can't really use that to question the elimination of money bail.