We don't destroy people just because someone else died and we demand a blood payment in return
Drivers who kill someone with a vehicle are judged on whether it was intended (first degree murder), the result of criminal negligence and/or taking risks with a predictable result (2nd / 3rd degree murder / vehicular manslaughter / criminal negligence / depraved heart / etc) or whether its just an accident that occurred despite reasonably safe and attentive driving, in which case its not a crime. Society doesn't benefit when we imprison people for accidents. A crime only occurs when there is both actus rea and mens rea, guilty in both action and mind.
And when someone is accused, they are entitled to pretrial release as long as they are in good standing and don't pose a further danger to the public or escape risk, because they are innocent until proven guilty.
The woman in this case is almost certainly guilty of a crime, because she was apparently both driving under the influence and without a license and speeding. But barring any violent criminal history or other factor beyond this crime, she's still entitled to release on bond. Which she posted, for $25,000.
We had a whole history of hammurabi, cicero, magna carta, blackstone, etc to hammer out these kinds of rights for accused criminals.