I am wondering why does the US still use this type of bail system despite its drawbacks?
I think many cultural aspects of the different countries make this a more nuanced and difficult issue than it might seem to one side or another of the debate.
It must be said that the US is very much a capitalist country. As such it is focused on personal wealth (or monetary value if you prefer). The bail system reflects this. Rather than using the bail system to restrict (alleged) offenders, it sets a (mostly) monetary value on offender and the crime allegedly committed.
As it is presumed in a capitalist system that people are also focused on wealth retention, the presumption of such a system is that they will attach significance to any risk of loosing bail money.
The biggest flaw is that there is a system of bail bonding. This undermines the whole basis of risk of loss as a punishment, as skipping out on bail will typically affect other people more than the offender.
As noted on the relevant Wikipedia page the has been significant movement towards what is referred to in the US as pretrial supervision. That is to using using electronic tagging and e.g. house arrest or movement restriction orders to effectively limit the activities of accused offenders prior to trial.
In effect, the cash bail system criminalizes poverty, as people who are unable to afford bail are detained while they await trial for weeks or even months.
Playing Devil's advocate I would say that the logic behind this is to increase the desire to obey laws in the first place and to not risk offending. That said, even that interpretation leads to the problem that those with wealth can view the imposition of bail as an inconvenience and not as significant a risk as an "ordinary" person would experience. It also seems to fly in the face of innocent until proven guilty as potentially you suffer a great deal for being innocent.
Studies show that pretrial detention can actually increase a person’s likelihood of rearrest upon release
Again playing Devil's Advocate, it could be argued that the study might be showing that those most likely to be detained are correctly identified by this system as repeat offenders. Or to put it another way, the study could arguably be said to support the idea that those not getting bail are also those most likely to be repeat offenders and it's not a fault with the system, but a feature. I suspect the devil is in the detail here and the situation is more nuanced and more "a little from column A and a little from column B" than "A or B".
In other countries, such as the United Kingdom, bail is more likely to consist of a set of restrictions that the suspect will have to abide by for a set period of time. Under this usage, bail can be given both before and after charge.
Many people in the UK (and my own similar country Ireland) would be extremely unhappy with the lack of detention for bailable offenses. Even in the case of repeat offenders quite lax bail conditions are often set in these jurisdictions and offending while on bail is perceived as quite common. It is quite difficult to work out whether that public perception is fair or not (e.g. this parliamentary question answer in the UK does not really deep dive the figures). It is however clear that in the 2012 stats quoted some 121,000 offenses were committed by people on bail for other offenses that year. That's a significant number given the UK's population. Of the order of about 90% of crimes in the UK do not lead to prosecution and there are of the order of about 5 million crimes reported. This would suggest about 450,000 prosecutions of which the bailed offender's figure would all (if I understand this correctly) be part of, or about 25% of all prosecutions are for offenses committed on bail in the UK.
So while the US system may seem to punish people unfairly, if looked at in the light of UK crime stats, there could be an argument that the US system is doing its job. Again not taking sides here, just presenting the counter-argument for the US system.
Again I think the nuances of this are far more subtle in practice in all jurisdictions than bare headline stats might suggest. For example, a distinct difference between UK/Ireland and US law is the severity with which DUI and DWI offenses are treated. In the US this is treated as a much more serious offense (generally) than in the UK and Ireland, where they are (barring serious injuries or damage) treated as offenses that result mostly in driving bans and fines, even for repeat offenders. On the other hand the US attitude to "minor" gun offenses would be considered quite strange in the UK and Ireland. So a great cultural gap exists which the stats will hide in many cases between countries.
So a lot of cultural attitudes are at work in forming the US attitude to bail and it could be argued that for the US it does what it is supposed to (Devil's Advocate) and that e.g. the UK/Irish system which seem more "humane" are also more unfair to victims.