I am a bit ambivalent about that. I know the purpose is to avoid a current inequity by which a kingpin who can post a million sleeps at home and someone who can’t scrounge together ten thou for street dealing sleeps in jail. And bail is strictly speaking not to keep you locked up for public protection, it’s a measure to ensure you do show up to court — so the court in this case might have rightly concluded “he isn’t going anywhere”. But still no-cash-bail or mandatory negligible “first-offense” amounts (set as if in a vacuum) seem to exclude a middle.