This case does highlight a few of the routine injustices in our criminal injustice system by applying them to someone who would normally not be subject to them.
The big one is the holding without bail. Yes the claim is that he is a flight risk and perhaps he is. But as the NY Times articles show the point is to hold him in the hell that is Ritkers to pressure him into a guilty plea. If the only concern was flight risk, he could have been allowed to rent a house or hotel with a bracelet for whatever. Further it is not just this rich white probable-rapist who this is used against. Prosecutors routinely try to get bail denied or made too high for a defendant to afford even with the modern bail bonds system. I know one case of a guy who got accused of bank robbery. He was indicted and held on a higher bail than he could afford and defended by a brilliant but overworked public defender - who discovered security footage of the defendant in a convenience store buying a beer miles from where the robbery occurred. There was also a store clerk who remembered the defendant. The prosecutor did not dismiss the charges, but offered a new deal of a guilty plea with reduction of the sentence to time served. The public defender recommended a guilty plea. "You won't do one day more in jail!" But the defendant indignantly refused to plead guilty to something he had not done. The prosecutor opposed the PD motion to release on own recognisance or reduce bail. The judge agreed saying the new evidence was not conclusive and thus not material to how big a flight risk defendent was. Eventually the case came to trial, and the defendent was acquitted - but after serving a year in jail as a flight risk. The PD and the prosecutor were both indignant that the defendant wasted everyone's time like that when he could have been walking free without a trial. Apparently a little thing like a felony conviction for an innocent man was too trivial to consider.