Not quite. The table on p.17 shows that people with a *prior* violent felony re-arrest who were released were more likely to be re-arrested. There is no section in that table that shows stats for people with *current* violent felony charges, since almost all of them are still legally eligible for bail.

And FWIW, the authors of the actual study suggest potential changes to the existing law where they do make those distinctions:

​

>Preventing re-arrest in the future could potentially involve careful, targeted policy changes based on these results. For example, future legislation or policy might make fewer “high risk” individuals (e.g., people with a prior violent felony) subject to mandatory release, allowing for wider judicial discretion in considering bail; or might enhance the range of non-monetary conditions for supporting “high risk” individuals. (To avoid misinterpretation, we are not embracing weaker decision-making standards that might compromise due process, undermine the presumption of innocence, or contradict legal precedents concerning when bail or pretrial detention are permissible.)

> On the other end of the spectrum, it could benefit public safety if legislation or policy encouraged the release of more bail-eligible people charged with relatively low-level offenses or with no or only minor criminal history, given that the incapacitation effects of incarceration (most people who face bail end up in pretrial detention) appear to be outweighed by its adverse “criminogenic” effects for these subgroups.

> Alternatively, armed with the knowledge that, in totality, the bail elimination provisions of the original reforms reduced recidivism, and reducing the use of bail in cases legally eligible for it had little net effect in either direction, policymakers would be justified on public safety grounds in avoiding further legislative or policy changes while awaiting additional rigorous studies over longer tracking periods.