Does that mean that as a constitutional matter, there must always be a cash bail option, so if you’re wealthy enough, you can always get out? Can there not be other options, or must there always be a cash option?
This is much like how it works in Canada. In addition to these types of conditions, there is an option for cash bail, but it must be put up by either the accused or family members. It’s a criminal offence for someone to put up bail for profit.
Either could apply. A judge could release a person on their own recognizance, but issue a curfew, for example. Or include additional conditions along with a bond amount.
And some bond conditions are mandated - in a case with a victim, there will be a “no contact” order (meaning, any direct or indirect contact with the victim would be a new law violation, and a basis to revoke bond) regardless of how much of a bond is levied.
I think that, in the Wisconsin situation, some excuse would always be found to lock up the defendant awaiting trial.
Ghislaine Maxwell has been in jail for something like 17 months, denied any bail even though I don’t see much risk she would repeat her alleged crimes if allowed out.
There’s a good fairness argument against cash bail, but it applies more to low-publicity sorts of crimes.
Jail before conviction should be an extreme last resort generally reserved for murder charges.
Here (England) there is a rebuttable presumption that everyone will get bail unless there are articulable reasons why not (may abscond, may commit further offences, may interfere with witnesses).
Asil Nadir (Polly Peck - Wikipedia) was released on bail sureties of £250,000 put up by his friends; when he fled to the Turkish half of Cyprus they were called on to pay up (though I think his bail had technically lapsed so they may not in the end have paid out)