Unfortunately this is not the point of bail, it’s to secure appearance at trial. Using it to keep risky offenders off the street is not part of it.
I don't think much of appealing to definitions, which it sounds like you are doing - this is what bail is, so this is what bail is.
However, if the DA has less control over the decision, that doesn't seem obviously bad to me? And making bad decisions doesn't seem like it's inherent in the reforms?
Well, I mean, it’s the legal system, so definitions are literally a foundational piece. Bail is defined in state law as money provided by the defendant to secure appearance at trial. If we wanted to define it as “requiring more money than a defendant is able to provide to keep them in jail”, we could change the law.
But it became both, along with an abusive money-making tool for bail bondsmen. Also, prohibitive bail was much more likely to be requested for minority defendants compared to white.
And from my perspective, I agree that the DA having less control over the decision is a good thing. I was just trying to articulate the background and the position of the people who are anti-reform. I’d be in favor of some objective way of assessing risk of short-term reoffending, and then holding people for some limited time period awaiting dispensation of their case, but only if we can figure out a way to mitigate bias.
Definitions are necessary to understand what a law is saying, I think we both agree. Not being a lawyer, I certainly have noticed that when I look up a law, it tries to define its terms in a precise manner.
Do you have a specific reference for "Bail is defined in state law as money provided by the defendant to secure appearance at trial"?