Inherent inconsistencies exist between methods used to determine the dangerousness of successful habeas petitioners and methods used to assess whether individuals should be incarcerated prior to trial. The Salerno and Hilton decision holds that community safety has a legitimate and compelling role in the body of law restraining personal liberty for the greater good. The result is that innocent people may be detained at the expense of attempts to cure a larger social evil. Further, abuses associated with standards established under the Bail Reform Act may cause the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the necessity of regulatory intervention to allay society's discomfort with freeing potentially dangerous individuals prior to trial. At the same time, State legislatures will be closely following the progress of Federal bail reform with an eye toward revising their own bail enactments to more accurately predict and detain dangerous individuals. Available alternatives to preventive detention, such as determinant sentencing, show promise in minimizing reliance on the difficult nature of predicting dangerous behavior. In the meantime, the criminal justice system should provide more clearcut determinants for predicting predict dangerous behavior. 277 footnotes