Nice to meet you, I already have a (probably valid) impression about you!

The eyes are a funny thing. They give you a view of the world (experience may vary on readers/observers using glasses [like me, until recently! :D])

Anyway, reading how courts make bail/no bail decisions, you'd think: why on earth are magistrates not using a scale whilst being blinfolded, and instead seem to be taking these decisions like "breakfast tea or earl grey tea" in the canteen?

Matching Heuristics (pdf, 72kb) give a pretty good explanation. Long story short, you can get a 95% accuracy on bail decisions based on 3 questions:
-Did the prosecution request conditional bail or oppose bail?
-Did the previous court impose a conditional or remand in custody?
-Did police impose conditions or remand in custody?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, please refer to your local Magistrates' court to be bailed/taken punitive action against you. That's 95% accuacy for you. However, if you have no information on those questions, it seems to be ok, and you can walk homehappily ever (until the trial, that is)

On a sidenote, reading Gladwell's Blink (yes, I love sofapsychology, don't you?) I've learned a thing or two (still reading it, though!)
-Get one of salt and one of pepper. Not everything said must be true, even if you want it to be (and you believe strongly in it), and even if Walt Disney told you that "your dreams will become true" bullshit. No, you can't fly just because you want to, and no, you can't make an argument valid just because you like how it looks.
-You form a pretty true image of a module/lecturer within 3 seconds of seeing him/her for the first time. This accuracy degree doesn't seem to increase too much.
-Listening to a conversation between a married couple will give you a pretty accurate picture of whether they will be married after 15 years see Gottman.

Yes, that's about it.