risk aspect? Someone who is not otherwise a danger to society might become a danger to society if they decide to flee. And having cash bail makes them less likely to flee? I guess I can see that, but seems like a stretch, and I'd like to see if there's any data that supports that assertion.

Outside of the petty criminal who just doesn't show up to court because he's a derelict (and in my world, he gets to do that ONE time and then bail is denied for any future charges), I think anyone facing serious enough charges that would lead them to flee and be violent in the process of fleeing are going to flee regardless of bail. The consequences of fleeing and committing violence in the act of fleeing are far graver than the consequence loss of a bail deposit. It just strains credulity for me to think that if someone like Jesse Matthews (to use an example mentioned in this thread) had been granted cash bail -- and could somehow come up with the money -- he would be on his best behavior for fear of losing his deposit on the bail amount. The guy was facing life in prison, I don't think he'd be concerned about losing his bail deposit.

Then you have the lefty complaint aspect (which I care less about) in that you are necessarily deciding that poor people should stay in jail while awaiting trial while rich people should be released.