Continuing the discussion from Dozens injured in Waukesha, WI at Christmas parade [update: 6 dead, over 40 injured]:
Separate topic in order not to derail the MPSIMS thread.
The Waukesha suspect’s bail was set at $5 million. In this specific case, this means the same as “no bail”. But what if this guy had been rich and easily able to put up that kind of money? (In fact my understanding is that the bail amount is something of a fiction anyway, as I believe you only actually need to put up 10%.)
So is the judge effectively saying, “despite your very long criminal record, including a history of bail-jumping, and despite the horrendous thing you just did, you may go free until trial and carry on doing all the things you’ve been doing (including flagrant lawbreaking like stabbing and public endangerment)”? Is there some strange legal reason that bail has to be set, albeit in a ridiculous amount, rather than being denied?
The other aspect of this is how someone would be treated who was, in fact, wealthy enough to afford such bail. There are certainly very wealthy people who go around flagrantly breaking the law, including perpetrating violent acts of assault and homicide. I can see only two possibilities, neither of them good.
One possibility is that said wealthy individual would be assessed a much higher bail, or denied bail altogether, which contravenes the principle of equality under the law.
The other possibility is that said wealthy individual would, in fact, effectively be able to buy his freedom, while the less wealthy individual would remain in jail awaiting trial. This also seems to contravene the principle of equality under the law, but through a mechanism that seems particularly endemic to America: the administration of justice according to ability to pay.
I just find it all very strange.