Well - we do have the concept of reasonable doubt. For the sake of framing it in the framework you've presented, we'll call it reasonable uncertainty. The probl

Well - we do have the concept of reasonable doubt. For the sake of framing it in the framework you've presented, we'll call it reasonable uncertainty. The problem with the case presented in the article is that all of the action happened before it proceeded to the part of the system where reasonable uncertainty is actually a valid argument, and ultimately, no charges were filed. It is undeniable that police do not behave under the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty, or innocent until it's been proven beyond reasonable uncertainty - it is purely for the courts to decide that. Police, when they suspect a person of wrongdoing will treat that person as guilty as far as the law will allow them to. They can handcuff you, put you in jail, point a gun at you, interrogate you, etc. as long as they believe they have a reasonable suspicion (not certainty, not a great deal of evidence, just reasonable suspicion). Given the number of false positives I've gotten with Bayesian spam filters, I'll take reasonable doubt over Bayesian justice ;)