I think it's great that you're thinking about unintended consequences, which people often neglect to do, but I just don't see how it follows that because we inc

I think it's great that you're thinking about unintended consequences, which people often neglect to do, but I just don't see how it follows that because we increase bail for wealthy suspects we would therefore have to decrease it for impoverished ones. We can write the rules however we want. ETA: Well, we can't necessarily write the rules however we want; there are Constitutional restrictions. In this case, the case could be made that increasing bail for wealthy suspects violates the guarantee of equal protection under the law. That's a different argument from the one you're raising, however.