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. So, while I -as an individual- think Trump (for example) is guilty as hell of pretty much everything he's been indicted for, he's not going to jail until he is convicted of at least one of those crimes. Because the state simply can't do that. And I'm OK with that, even if a bit frustrated.

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. The price we sometimes pay is that people do get hurt by bad people because the bar for imprisoning them is very high. That also protects you and me, should either of us ever be accused of a crime.

We are somewhat unique in the world in this regard. I believe in some countries you have to prove you innocence (and not even authoritarian countries). I prefer our system, even if bad guys can end up going free (either pre-trial, or through acquittal).