I post this question because I saw on the news a pedophile was arrested but released after he posted $10,000 bail, they just told him to "stay away from children until his trial"! This also happened last year when a priest was arrested for raping 2 girls who were under 10 years old. Should intentional murderers, rapists, child molesters, armed robbers and other dangerous criminals have bail made available to them?

My belief is definitely not, for many reasons. First, the danger such people pose to the community. Secondly, the flight risk. Chances are even under surveillance these people will attempt to flee, particularly armed robbers, rapists and those arrested for intentional homicide (OJ, Scott Peterson, etc..). A third reason related to the second is- fleeing to another state or country will cost more money to the police departments, FBI, courts (all paid for by taxpayers) than actually keeping the accused person in custody in the first place.

The only drawback is, it poses a big inconvenience to people "wrongfully accused" (just about everyone in our heavily negro-populated prison claims innocence LOL). One solution is that the small percentage of wrongfully accused people would, once exonerated, receive monetary compensation at a flat monthly rate which would correspond to the amount of time they were incarcerated, $1000/month for "emotional distress" or whatever they're calling it now. Lost jobs, lost wages, lost homes would have to be out of the state's hands. Getting arrested for something you didn't do is an unfortunate part of the imperfect legal system we have.

If I were to assume control of the United States tomorrow (God forbid! hahahaha! ) among many other things I would take some of the money and resources sent to certain "shitty little countries" and invest in a new government agency for victims rights. It could be housed in the building formerly known as the USHMM. It would help crime victims and their families, and people wrongfully accused.