I get your frustration, Mike. I really do. But as albaby has explained, the Founders -rightly- were concerned about government infringing on liberties of the people. That's why we have a presumption of innocence, no matter what a person's history is. - 1pg

I get that and agree there is a good reason for that. But it is frustrating. If you or I were accused of a violent crime, I think it is clear we deserve the benefit of the doubt more than some twenty year career criminal with multiple convictions for inflicting serious bodily damage and has now been arrested for another such violent crime. That is all I am saying. Temper the presumption of innocence somehow or at least give judges the option.

I don't recall now who said it, but I grew up with a quote ringing in my ears: "better one hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man go to prison". Our Founders seem to have taken that to heart with the BoR. - 1pg

Is society better served if those 100 guilty parties go on to commit another 1,000 crimes including battery, rape or murder of 100 innocent citizens? And I am not saying, treat the accused as guilty but rather protect the public by detaining them until their trial. Speeding up the criminal process would help too.

Speaking of the Bill of Rights, we have learned these rights are not absolute, eg regulations on gun ownership, the right to vote being stripped from convicted felons, the yelling fire in a theater example concerning freedom of speech, and the latest stripping people of their right to attend church due to the covid emergency. So why can't the presumption of innocence be suspended until trial for someone whose record includes five, ten, twenty (you pick a number) of convictions for violent crimes AND has been charged with yet another violent crime, or as I have said at least give the judge the option to do so.