I presume you are OK with the presumption of innocence?
Once we say that the nature of the charged offense dictates whether there is cash bail, the result is that defendants with financial wherewithal make bail, while the indigent sit in jail for months awaiting trial.
Let's take rape -- which we can all agree is a violent crime.
Take two separate defendants (both college students) -- one with wealthy parents (let's call him Johnny) and one from the projects who is on a full scholarship (let's call him Malik). Neither defendant has any prior record.
Presume identical facts: Both defendants charged with rape and strangulation against a coed. Both defendants insist the sex and "rough sex" was consensual, and that the allegation surfaced only after coed's boyfriend learned about the encounter, and that Suzie made herself a "victim" to ward off her boyfriend thinking she cheated.
Bail set at $100,000 cash.
Johnny's parents post the bail. Mailk is held in lieu of bail.
Trial held 11 months later. Jury returns verdicts on Not Guilty.
Sucks for Johnny that he had to endure the legal journey. Really sucks for Malik as he lost 11 months of his liberty.
In Malik's case, imagine if bail was $30,000 secured (meaning $3k to a bail bondsman -- an easier lift for Malik), no contact with complainant, GPS ankle bracelet monitoring device, and pre-trial supervision. Unreasonable???