This points to one of the dilemmas that societies will be hard pressed to confront. Are we capable of accepting decisions underpinned by algorithms even when the outcome is negative in a few cases? Inevitably an individual released as a result of one of these algorithms will commit a criminal act and the argument will arise that had an individual been responsible for making the evaluation and that had cash bail existed then such crime would not have occurred. I think people will have significant difficulty in accepting even the slightest of errors with algorithms (particularly with respect to violent crime) even if the overall result is lower than if humans had been the sole deciders. In many ways it's analogous with the ongoing debates about so-called driverless cars.