to avoid the appearance of jailing a political candidate, even though Trump has broken the terms of his release repeatedly and any other person would have been detained until trial for the same behavior.
I understand the gravity of making such a decision in a democracy because it gives the appearance of silencing optical opposition. Trump, of course, is playing that card. It would have been much better if he had been detained earlier, before he had a chance to ratchet up the threats and develop a dedicated revenge group among his followers. Now there is the problem of making him a martyr and a rallying point for violent reactions. Judges have to weigh many factors in their decisions. I think that consequences to society are probably a part of what they consider regarding Trump now.
This situation reminds me of a case in British history when difficult decisions had to be made and the consequences would be very serious for society and for accepted law of the time period regardless of which way the decision went. I'm thinking of Queen Elizabeth I of England and Mary, Queen of Scots. Scottish lords had forced Mary to abdicate the Scottish throne. Mary fled to England for asylum.
Mary was Elizabeth's younger cousin and therefore in line to become the next English ruler after Elizabeth. But Mary was Catholic. Elizabeth and England were Protestant. Catholic countries wanted to overthrow Elizabeth. In England, Mary became a focal person for anti Elizabeth feeling. Elizabeth had Mary kept under arrest at various castles in England to keep her under control. Elizabeth knew that arresting Mary had the possible consequence of making Mary a political martyr to her followers. But not arresting Mary ran the risk of letting her continue efforts to overthrow Elizabeth.
Mary used servants during her arrest to deliver letters in a secret plot, with help from Catholic nations, to invade England and assassinate Elizabeth. The letter delivery system was actually under control by Elizabeth's spies and the letters became evidence for Mary to be tried and convicted of plotting against England and Elizabeth. The sentence was death, but only Elizabeth could order it to be carried out.
Another difficult decision for Elizabeth. Mary was her cousin and heir to the throne. To execute a fellow monarch was a dangerous precedent for the time period. Plus, it was personal since Elizabeth's own mother had been executed by Elizabeth's father. To further complicate the decision, Elizabeth knew that Spain would invade in retaliation if she executed Mary. But, if she didn't execute her, Spain would invade on Mary's behalf.
Mary was executed, Spain attacked England, but was defeated by the English Navy with civilian assistance before the Spanish ships could land. England took Spain's place as ruler of the seas.
I see similarities in weighing the consequences of legal decisions to arrest and convict a political rival who wants to overthrow the government. Arrest and conviction carries the risk of rebellious retaliation by the perpetrator's followers. But not arresting the head of the plot to overthrow the government allows the overthrow to continue and succeed. In the case of Elizabeth and Mary, the risks included foreign interference. In the modern case with Trump, there is also a problem of foreign interference.
= new reply since forum marked as read