Sean “Diddy” Combs, charged with federal sex trafficking and racketeering crimes for allegedly forcing women to participate in wild and violent sexual performances he videotaped, was denied bail by Manhattan Federal Magistrate Judge Robyn Tarnofsky. Why? Because pretrial detention, or the lack thereof, works differently in the federal system than in New York State courts. In the federal justice system, it makes sense. In the Empire State’s justice system, it doesn’t. Combs is innocent until proven guilty, as are all those who get arraigned in Brooklyn or Manhattan or Queens or Bronx or Staten Island courtrooms. But in determining whether an individual will be free to await their trial in freedom, federal judges consider risk of flight — meaning, the likelihood that an individual will return to court — and danger to the community, meaning the possibility that the defendant, if back in the community, will hurt more people. (In federal court, no one is held “on bail” as we understand it in the state system. Rather, a defendant is either held — or they’re released on bond with a series of conditions.) New York State’s system is comparatively cockamamie. First, there’s cash bail, which many legislators wanted to do away with back in 2019 but didn’t manage to. That means a judge can either order a defendant held, or can release them, or can set a price that’s the effective amount the defendant must come up with to get out. After those well-intentioned but terribly designed 2019 reforms, bail can only be set for a subset of crimes (the subset has gotten a bit larger after reforms to the reforms), mostly but not only serious violent crimes. But it’s still bail — meaning, there’s a set price for an individual’s freedom. If the person meets it, he can await trial in freedom. If not, not. It’s a serious injustice that this remains on the books. Equally misbegotten was the fact that Albany failed to add a provision saying judges could factor in the defendant’s risk of reoffending when determining whether to order them held, set bail or release. Instead, the sole legal standard on the books here is flight risk — which is profoundly dishonest. It’s especially dishonest because bail can only be set for a subset of more serious crimes, even though those crimes don’t correlate with the ones where there’s a higher risk of flight. In short, statutes here limit setting of bail to a subset of mostly violent crimes. At the very same time, they tell state judges that the only variable they are allowed to consider is risk of flight — not a defendant’s potential dangerousness. In the real world, state judges here effectively set bail based on their perceptions of dangerousness, using “flight risk” as a dishonest proxy. The law of the land is hopelessly confusing and contradictory and so judges, forced to implement it, wink and nod and go about their business because it’s the only way to square the circle. The way to fix this is for New York, once and for all, to get with the program of 49 other states and the federal system and create a standard whereby judges objectively assess a defendant’s likelihood of endangering other people while awaiting trial. Just stop pretending.