That would not only be illegal but is indeed unconstitutional. Innocent until proven guilty.

Hmm. A classic case of parroting words, without understanding their meaning.

Innocent until proven guilty means that the individual cannot be incarcerated or punished as if they were guilty, without first determining guilt.

This does not mean that someone who is a threat to the community gets to run around until the outcome of a trial has been determined.

Bail is a method by which we have communally agreed that individuals are most likely to return to trial, while allowing them access to their lives and loved ones, and time to get their affairs in order before the trial.

People who are a risk to the community, or at risk for not returning, are set higher bonds to ensure compliance with the law and the impending court proceedings. This, of course, does not always work, but someone is far more likely to show up to be judged when there's maybe tens of thousands of dollars on the line.

It's both legal, and constitutional - it's the basis of our justice system enacting innocent until proven guilty, by allowing someone charged with a crime to continue to act as if they were innocent, retaining some modicum of freedom.

Anything else either means we're allowing people to evade prosecution and harm the community further, or alternatively, incarcerating individuals until trial, which even if expedited as a system, is not an enactment of innocent until proven guilty.

Last, but not least, this is only as applies to the government and its representatives and laws.

The compromise to incarcerating you until trial, or allowing guilty person to commit more crimes, is bail.

Like it or not, we don't exactly have a better option.