Not speaking to law, but in principle this seems like a case-by-case decision that (in the US) I would expect a judge to make. I would expect a competent judge

Not speaking to law, but in principle this seems like a case-by-case decision that (in the US) I would expect a judge to make. I would expect a competent judge to weigh the societal cost of the crime vs the probability of re-committing it vs the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence. For violent crimes it swings pretty hard on the societal cost of the crime (but maybe be mitigated if the crime was one of passion or if the motive was clear and not likely to result in a re-commission). For jaywalking it swings pretty hard in the other direction. For crimes where there is a victim but no violence, it would depend on the specifics of the case in question.