The point you raise, sir, I think is the crux of the bail issue, and I guess there are two basic facts I'd like to....
A court cannot get it right every time. It can't be done. There's never enough information for a court to be perfectly right every time. There will be errors. It's unavoidable. So I suggest designing the system, which is what a court is, in such a way that when there is an error, the maximum damage is minimal.
For the case you're talking about...actually there's a case in Newfoundland in Saturday's paper. A guy spent 27 months in jail based on DNA evidence that has now been demonstrated to be almost certainly wrong. I think he's out now and I think they've dropped the charges--but it's analogous to the bouncer case.
He was wrongfully accused. I've had a lot of time to think about this. I've been lying in wait for you, sir, and I'm sorry if it's going to come out this way, but I propose a debate. I want your bouncer who spends 27 months or whatever in jail and then is freed to debate a bail-released murder victim. I want him to come in here and tell you how much he suffered, and then I want Zachary to come in here and tell you how much he suffered, and let's see who got hurt the most.