You could ask your friend why NYC let known convicts out with out bail.
And most go on to rob banks and people and even kill.
https://nypost.com/2021/08/09/nycs-no-bail-law-rewards-criminals-punishes-law-abiding-citizens/
No cash bail is far, far fairer than basically locking everyone who can't afford bail up for potentially years before they've been found guilty.
In the US it's not uncommon for people to be in prison for 1-2 years or more before they face a jury for relatively minor crimes and the reason the likes of the police and prosecutors don't like "no cash bail" is because it removes one of their key levers to get guilty verdicts - if you're facing spending 12+ months in jail before getting any chance to plead your case for a minor crime losing your job whilst you wait your turn before a jury, or you get told by a prosecutor to plead guilty and they'll let you out on time served even people who aren't guildy will take the plea.
It's an incredibly unfair system as it means that you literally have two classes of justice, someone who has commited a major crime but has money in the bank can get bail, whilst someone who might not even be guilty and has only comitted a minor crime (say possession of weed) might be locked away for a year or more just because they can't come up with a couple of thousand dollars.
The issue comes with not doing risk assessments on those being given bail.
The article you link to gives no information on how many who are released on bail go on to commit crimes, that's just your take on it.
The UK and many other countries operate a "no cash" bail as a default because it's the system that doesn't punish people who are poor far worse than those who are rich, instead they operate variations on risk based bail, you're a repeat offender for a serious crime and you're unlikely to get bail, you're charged with murder you're unlikely to get bail, if you're charged with a non violent crime, or a minor violent crime (say you got involved in a fight) and you're likely to get bail.