Bonds should reflect the nature of the crime. A $1.5 million one, in the case of Karim M. Nasr seems fitting.

Nasr is accused of attacking an MSU student in October.

The charges he faces seem to justify a large bond: second-degree criminal sexual conduct, criminal sexual conduct assault with the intent to commit sexual penetration, assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder and minor in possession of alcohol.

Defense attorney Nabhi Ayad argued that because the charge of kidnapping was no longer being pursued, his client's bond should have been lowered. He concluded a high bond was motivated by ethnic discrimination.

It's shocking he didn't think the three borderline felony charges had something to do with it.

We don't know if Nasr actually committed the charges against him: He's innocent until proven guilty.

But even without kidnapping, these are all serious charges involving violent behavior. Bonds should be set high to protect the community from a potentially dangerous individual until the case is decided. It also ensures the court doesn't lose track of an accused person.

Setting a $1.5 million bond was smart.

The bond also sends a message about rape culture in general. A high bond bestows blame on the perpetrator and not the victim.

Ayad is grasping at straws arguing that racial motivation is involved. However, if people take his accusations seriously, they could question the integrity of the American judicial system. Although there is potential for courts to discriminate, it's not something that should be assumed. People should be able to trust their court system unless there is a proven reason not to.

In this case, the judge would probably have reacted the same way regardless of the defendant's race.

Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III said it best when he called the accusations of ethnic discrimination "bullshit."

Bullshit indeed.