It doesn't require a standard of proof in the way that people don't work with a standard-of-proof 3-pronged test-of-likability for their spouses. Among the myr

It doesn't require a standard of proof in the way that people don't work with a standard-of-proof 3-pronged test-of-likability for their spouses. Among the myriad reasons: the nature of the crime matters. If they got caught with a bit too much LSD in 1975 it doesn't matter even if proven & admitted and convicted. If, however, there's just a whiff of corruption then that's Game Over, next please. Hell, if they were arrested in bar fight just last year and spend a week in jail, that might even be a plus: first hand experience of the criminal justice system from "deep inside" could at least excuse a singular transgression (perhaps depending on what side of emacs-vs-vim they so drastically defended in that bar). So it's more of a calculation, as in probability X recency X seriousness X relevancy for job +/- all other factors. ...rather than any single standard of proof. And that's fine. That's how it has always been, and how it was originally envisioned.