I don't know. I think it is much better that a few folks don't show up to trial than to criminalize being poor. If I remember correctly, we can reduce folks not showing up by simple measures, like calling to remind folks of trial dates and making sure folks have transportation to get to trial. Why the heck would we put low-and-medium risk folks in jail, to be put in a position to lose their job, house, and freaking children, when we can do these other things that don't criminalize poverty while having less disruption of life?

If folks are found not guilty after spending weeks or months in jail (while being low to medium risk of fleeing), shouldn't we then shoulder the responsibility of fixing the life we've left in shambles? Especially since there was, indeed, other options we could have taken? We don't: At least in Indiana, even if you are found not guilty, you have administrative costs taken out of the bail amount you got back. And that's if you were lucky enough not to be forced to use a bondsman - then you won't get anything back (Yes, folks are court-ordered to use bondsman).

I don't think we should be asking for a surety for low risk at all, and medium risk is iffy - and this is just for felonies. I don't see a good reason to hold anyone for a misdemeanor.

I'm not certain that removing bondsman would make the US system more sane, though it does mean that you aren't charging an actual fee to get out, but instead returning (most of) bail if found not guilty.