why would a judge give a bond to anyone who is danger to public safety. shouldn't judge deny bond for those who the judge thinks are dangerous. and if they are indeed dangerous, how exactly does size of bond, make the public any safer if the criminal is a dangerous criminal, if they bond out. this judge sounds like he doesn't know the law of the state, and if he does, he doesn't care what the state law says, and he will drum up unlawful reasons and do what ever he wants anyway. and why do the lawyers let judge get away with such moronic outside of the laws of the state nonsense.
most defendants never put up money for their own bond - family friends do it for them. thus most defendants get out of jail for free. some families put up cash or house, and when they do, the bond costs nothing. only when the family chooses to finance the bond, will they incur costs. judges who think that a bond will cost a defendant money are idiots. and if a bondsman will take 3% fee and be happy, imagine how happy they are when they get paid 10% fee. any judge who is fixated on 10%, especially when the reality says defendants rarely post their own bonds in the first place - need to seek other employment. unless of course, the judge wants to protect certain bail bond friends from losing business and outrageous profit to those who are happy at the 3% fee and a reasonable profit. at 10% fee, the family are the ones who get ripped off, not the defendant - in fact, the defendant gets out of jail for free. let free market principles work, and let the family members get competitive fee instead of having to pay some overpriced outrageous fee like 10%. when it comes to justice system, the system allows familys to be ripped off by overpaid bondsman and overpriced lawyers. eliminate the existing illegal price-fixing system.