One of the biggest issues with thinking innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to courts is that courts are not divorced from publ

One of the biggest issues with thinking innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to courts is that courts are not divorced from public opinion. The whole 'tough on crime' stance happens because in public opinion, a guy is guilty with far less evidence than the court needs. If the court cannot also find them guilty, the public sees this as a problem. Nothing direct happens, but as this occurs time and time again people begin to vote for those who don't allow this 'miscarriage of justice' to continue to occur. So over time, the public selects for people who act in ways that do not support innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. DAs willing to ignore evidence. Judges willing to present cops as being more trustworthy a source (such as allowing them to show up in uniform). And even crime labs who are a little willing to help convict the guy who is 'obviously' guilty. In short, because public opinion eventually impacts the courts through some path, if the people don't believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the case of public opinion, then the courts will eventually lose that focus as well.