In fairness to those expressing anger at the process, I do think it’s unlikely that the Framers intended for the BoR to be interpreted as liberally as it is today. I’m not so sure that the Warren Court’s vision of a fair trial is what the Framers had in mind.
I didn’t notice anyone expressing anger at the process, but rather anger at the perpetrator. The problem there — is — that “people” (in general) don’t really know who the perpetrator is, even when someone is accused or reported to be “allegedly” (as they put it), the perpetrator. You really *still don’t know* for sure.
And that’s what the “process” is for, in order to *prove* that someone is guilty (i.e, is “really” the perpetrator). I don’t think people should mix in the feeling for *absolutely demanding* someone be punished — with the “assumption” that a particularly-named person (for any kind of crime) is *really* the guilty party. You may think you know, but you really don’t know.
It’s also been shown that *most people* think the person who has been “accused” is really the guilty person — because they wouldn’t have been accused if they weren’t guilty in the first place. I know that goes against the “principle” of the matter in our system of government (i.e., innocent until proven guilty) — but — it’s actually the case that, in spite of that principle, most people think the accused people *are* the “guilty people”...
If a person is sitting in that courtroom, with an attorney, on the defense side, most of the public will assume that person is guilty in some way (in general and for the most part; not necessarily in every single court case, though...).
So, it’s *all the more important* — in light of that — to make absolutely sure that someone gets their trial and all the benefits of our system that was set up, to insure that anyone who is innocent is protected.