>

Then why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit "the worst violent offenses"?
/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release. >

The incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.
Further, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.
Misdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.
And now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.
Source: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again. >

The vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.  The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought.  Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.
"Catch and release," policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again.  Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster. >


The vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.

This is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth. >

No it isn't false.  90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea.  Fewer than 1/2 of 1%  of criminal defendants were acquitted.  That constitutes the vast majority of cases.  Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.
Also, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours.  Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence.  You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail. >

Pleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all. >

It doesn't matter.  The criminal liability you face is the same. >

But your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.
That seems like an incredibly important distinction. >

I am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes.  It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal
justice system.
As a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories.  If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.