Johan: You have raised several interesting points, and I am going to respond.
1) I am not going to hold one system as better than another. The application of the system often fails to live up to the lofty thoughts of the system itself. So, in application the system often fails.
2) "Innocent until proven guilty" is simplly a legal term. It relates to the statute and a judicial decision that the statute has been violated.
3) You asked:
Why was there a bond of $80.000 on Tommy Shelton if he was considered completely innocent?
In your question I think you fail to understand the issue of bail bond as used in the United States. The bail bond is NOT set on the basis of guilt or innocence. Rather it is set on: 1) The resources available to the defendent. 2) The likelyhood that the defendent would flee the area. 3) The costs that would be incurred to bring the defendent back if he fled.
One does not go to trial if that peson is considered completely innocent. Rather, one goes to trial when it is believed that there is enough evidence to support taking him to trial so that guilt or innocence may be determined. IOW going to trial is not smply the "whim" of some DA. The DA has evidence to raise a litigimate question that can only be determined in a judicial enviornment.
4) In my personal opinon, the $80,000 bond was set based upon the idea that TS does not have a home in VA (as I understand it) and the costs to the State if TS were to return to him home and refuse to come back to VA for trial. If he owned a home in VA he might have been released on his own recognizence (sp), or by putting his home up for bond.
NOTE: I am not defending TS. I am simply making a couple of legal comments.