I don't have to have the same standard of evidence as courts to judge someone though. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' doesn't have an agreed upon numerical probabi

I don't have to have the same standard of evidence as courts to judge someone though. 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' doesn't have an agreed upon numerical probability AFAIK, but let's say it's 95%. I can say, sure, don't put people in jail until it's 95% certain they're a bad guy, but if I think it's 75% likely they're a bad guy, I'm still gonna think they're probably not the most lawful person ever. (I have zero evidence either way w.r.t to this case specifically, I'm not saying he's guilty, but I just don't think it's as black and white as you make it sound. If someone is accused of murdering children, and there is some evidence pointing to that, but not enough to reach 'beyond a reasonable doubt' so he is found not guilty, it's quite sane to refuse to hire him as a babysitter.)