> It is quite popular to be consistent and defend anybody who isn't convicted of a crime. I don’t know how popular this is, or at least how popular it should b

> It is quite popular to be consistent and defend anybody who isn't convicted of a crime. I don’t know how popular this is, or at least how popular it should be. Conviction is based on the extremely high bar of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the standard for depriving a person of their liberty. Society rightly does not operate at that standard. Conviction was never meant to be a proxy for whether you ought to do business with somebody. Think about killers who “got off on a technicality,” where everyone knew they were guilty. Or open criminals who for whatever reason were unable to face a jury, like many mass shooters. It just doesn’t make sense to say “well the courts never formally convicted them so we have a duty to defend them.” Sorry if this is long-winded. I am just alarmed by this trend of equating legal standards with social standards.