You mentioned the famous quote about “Better ten...”, right? There was a great counter I came across while researching my book. Some theoreticians or jurists or whoever said essentially--I can't remember the exact quote and I will paraphrase--that any way you turn it, it's still ten times the number of errors. Wrong is wrong. If a decision is wrong, either way, it's still a wrong decision.
Why was Turner released on bail? In a nutshell, Judge Gale Welsh, in her written decision, stated--and Kate paraphrased it a while ago too--that her crime, while violent, was specific in nature. That's a quote--“specific in nature”. It meant that if she did the crime, she's already killed the person she meant to kill: Andrew Bagby. He's the one who really angered her. That does not imply that she's a threat to anyone else. That was her fundamental logic, as I interpret that phrase “specific in nature”. She also stressed that presumption of innocence applies.
My counter to both of those is that presumption of innocence is a very important principle in criminal law, in my opinion and apparently in the opinion of almost anybody who thinks about it, at least in the western world, but it has been stretched to ludicrous extremes. There ought to be some middle ground where precautions can be taken if someone is probably a killer but has not yet been determined to be a killer beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, I propose a blanket rule, but it could be somewhere in the middle, such as a halfway house. If you're accused of a violent crime, you go live in a halfway house where you have a lot of freedom and your friends can come see you, but you can't walk out of there and do it again. If you do walk out of there, then you go to a real jail.
I don't know; I'm making this up half on the fly. The point is that there ought to be a way to protect the truly innocent against the probably guilty until you get to the stage at which it is beyond a reasonable doubt at the trial.