>The ACLU has a nice FAQ on the evils of "cash bail" here [0].

There's nothing evil about it in principle. Securing someone's presence at trial requires that they lose something if they fail to show. When judges set bail so high that people cannot afford it out of pocket, they are at fault. Not the concept of cash bail. If bail were set at amounts people could afford, they do not lose the money... it is returned when they show for trial regardless of the verdict.

Our constitution actually has an amendment, in the Bill of Rights no less, forbidding excessive bail. Has no one ever heard of it?

The judges do this shit for many reasons. For one, when someone should not be remanded on bail because they are a danger to society, judges will often set the bail at eleventy zillion dollars, knowing that they won't be able to post bail. But in doing so, they slowly erode psychological norms among their colleagues as to what is excessive. The presence of a bail bond industry, and the lobbying of bail bondsmen only makes it worse. Most of the people you know actually believe that all bail money is forfeited because of bail bonding.

The only solution needed is means-testing bail amounts.

> For one, when someone should not be remanded on bail because they are a danger to society, judges will often set the bail at eleventy zillion dollars, knowing that they won't be able to post bail

Why can't they just deny bail in such cases? Is it local laws that forbid them from doing so? In which case, it seems that the ability to set a ridiculously high bail is a net benefit to society.