What ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"??

[alcibiades_mystery]

100. I shouldrephrase: it really is a general way of behaving, but there are different proof levels

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is merely a legal standard. It refers to the burden or level of proof required before the state can act on your body.

Individuals, and the public in general, have different standards of proof - but anybody an individual believes to have committed a particular act has been proven guilty to the satisfaction of that individual. Similarly, anybody the public generally believes to have committed a particular act has been proven guilty to the satisfaction of most people who compose that public. Put another way, if you ask an individual or group why they believe somebody to be guilty, they will supply (usually good) reasons. The guilt of the accused has been proven sufficient to that forum or individual. Nobody (despite a lot of protestations) decides that X suspect is guilty just on say so. People listen to arguments, and become persuaded.

The supposed problem is that the standard of proof is only sufficient in a court of law. So, you ask individuals and the public to suspend their own judgments until that particular procedure takes place. There are certainly benefits to that, but you're really taking context specific forms of proof and mixing them up. The high standard in a court applies precisely because the state can act on the body of the accused. Whether I, as a private citizen, believe Mr. Tsarnaev is guilty of these acts, by contrast, has relatively little effect on Mr. Tsarnaev. The standards of proof in court are high because the consequences are severe. You're asking people to transpose those very high standards to situations where the consequences are minor, if they exist at all (discussing the case in a bar, for instance).