enough violent crime that the would go on the run and be a danger to others is going to be a danger to others regardless and should be denied bail altogether. My scenarios for bail are:

1) Means to flee, serious enough crime to incentivize them to flee --> cash bail
2) Prior failure to show up for court date --> cash bail
3) Violent offender that is a danger to others --> no bail

Doing cash bail for #3, which is what you seem to be suggesting we do, doesn't make sense. If that violent offender is somehow able to post bail, do you think they're less of a danger. I think in most cases the offender only puts up 10% with the bail bondsman putting up the difference. So you're a violent offender accused of murder, the judge sets bail at $50K. You scrounge together $5K by selling your car and a couple of guns. You're facing murder charges and could spend the next 50 years in jail. Do you think that person thinks... well I was going to go on the run and maybe kill a bunch more people in the process... but damn... what about that $5K?