An ironic position on bail reform for a defense attorney

When I began reading George K. Rosenstock's article "There is an elephant in the room when it comes to bail reform" (Daily Journal, Sept. 21, 2018), I thought it was tongue-in-cheek, in the tradition of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." To my shock, Mr. Rosenstock was serious. There is so much that is wrong with the article that it's hard to know where to start, but I'll give it a shot:

The author advocates the continued use of cash bail as a way "to resolve cases quickly and fairly," arguing that the immediate and continuing incarceration of indigent defendants will fulfill the goals of instantaneously imposing punishment for the commission of crimes and disincentivizing recidivism. His advocacy of immediate punishment -- even before criminal charges are filed -- overlooks one of the bedrock principles of our justice system, the presumption of innocence. Pretrial incarceration of defendants solely because of their indigence is also incompatible with resolving cases "fairly," contrary to what Mr. Rosenstock believes. The author contends that "the overwhelming majority of arrestees" are guilty of the crimes with which they are charged and that most of the incarcerated defendants will eventually plead guilty because they are unable to afford bail. Apparently, to the author it's acceptable if innocent people are forced to plead guilty just to get out of jail; he is far more concerned that pretrial release will necessitate additional hearings and burden the criminal justice system. Mr. Rosenstock argues that the setting of money bail balances the considerations of danger to the public and flight risk in the same way as pretrial risk assessment. That's another fallacy he advances, as the well-to-do arrestee can make high bail and pose a danger to the public or flee the jurisdiction notwithstanding the setting of high bail, while a validated, evidence-based pretrial risk assessment helps prevent the two risks.

In what is perhaps the greatest irony of the article, Mr. Rosenstock is described as a defense attorney. One wonders how he reconciles his core beliefs about the cash bail system with the zealous advocacy on behalf of his clients which his attorney oath demands.