[effie]

> "I don't think you can really object that "too much" money is being spent."

If you are UK taxpayer, you can.

> "It's up to the relevant authorities to figure out when enough is enough, financially speaking." It is, but when they spend more than seems appropriate for the offense, then questions and doubts about the incentives pop up.

[foldr]

Skipping bail is a serious offense. The criminal justice system would collapse if people were routinely able to skip bail without consequences. This point is especially pertinent when the person who skips bail is in the public eye and everyone can see him getting away with it.

As a UK taxpayer myself, I'm happy to see the rule of law eventually prevail in this instance. It strikes me as stingy and short-sighted to value that outcome at less than a few million pounds.

> It is, but when they spend more than seems appropriate for the offense, then questions and doubts about the incentives pop up.

Not really. I'd use the Madeline McCann case as a comparison. Millions of pounds of public money were spent looking for one missing girl who was (sadly) quite unlikely to be alive. You can question whether that's money well spent. But it doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain why large amounts of money sometimes get spent investigating cases that are extensively covered in the news.

[miemo]

if a country charges a man with sleeping with another man, one which carries a potential death sentence, and after bail he claims asylum in the west, would you consider his skipping bail a perversion of justice?

[foldr]

It's not a possible scenario, since there are at least two reasons why a European Arrest Warrant couldn't be issued in those circumstances.

(i) An EAW can only be issued for something that's a crime in the country that issues it.

(ii) European countries can't extradite people who would face the death penalty on conviction.