[Karellen]

> It's not "solely" because we're talking about someone already committed a crime. This punishment is not JUST for a poor person, it is for a poor person who is a criminal.

Um, bail is for people who are awaiting trial. It's for people who are suspected of having committed a crime. It is for someone who might be a criminal.

Innocent until proven guilty.

[proc0]

Sure, then there is a distinction between criminal suspects and poor people, which means those mostly affected by the bonds are poor people who are also criminal suspects. The question is then are the majority of those criminal suspects guilty, if no then this is really inefficient and/or corrupt law enforcement, if yes then eliminating bail has the potential to release these criminals and risking more crimes... just because some of them are committing low level crimes and can't afford bail. Now if the law accounts for this and makes a distinction between low level crimes and first time offenders, then I guess that would be fine.

[chaps]

What would be an "acceptable" percent of people who, despite not committing the crime they've been charged with, spent 6mo in jail to you? 5%? 10%? 20%?

And yes, the law typically makes a distinction, but that's ultimately state dependent. But frankly, if you didn't already know that, then you should seriously consider spending some doing some bottom of the barrel fundamental research that you clearly haven't done. Until you've done that research and can actually argue from a position of basic knowledge on this topic, then I can't see you as anything other than a cruel, vapid person. Do better.

Good luck.