There was a comment here, which I guess was flagged for... being snarky? But I think it merits discussion: > Guilty until proven innocent... > "Welcome to Ame

There was a comment here, which I guess was flagged for... being snarky? But I think it merits discussion: > Guilty until proven innocent... > "Welcome to America" I see a lot of this sentiment around, regarding people whose “lives are ruined” etc by not getting a job, or having a public reputation for committing a crime they haven’t been convicted of. But I don’t understand the “in all matters of public life, treat everyone as innocent of every crime until they are convicted”. But to me it seems like exercising discretion in our private judgements ALLOWS the state to have the highest possible standard for guilt (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). To take an extreme example, if we are going to allow anyone who hasn’t been convicted of child molesting to work in a day care center, then I would want MUCH more aggressive conviction strategy by the state. Even a slight preponderance of evidence would be enough, since we would NEED a conviction in order to put in place the most basic protections for the public. Instead, it seems to me, we all should judge people guilty of crimes entirely at our own discretion, that way the courts are FREE to only imprison those who have met the highest standard of guilt. I simply don’t understand those who suggest that employers, public forums, and communities should presume innocence until there is a conviction. Does anyone here hold that ideal who can defend it?