Sort of. It's a technical detail of US criminal justice. If it was some moral basis of all justice, you'd have to explain why civil justice is 'immoral'.
I hate seeing the US policy discarded because it's "irrelevant"
I don't think anyone did that - if anything, you're seem to be elevating something you're very familiar with to some sort of universal principle mainly on the basis of that familiarity. And anyone who disagrees is a tyrant, somehow?
We make all sorts of nuanced judgements, even about other people's criminality, all the time. Sure, it's best not to judge without basis or too hastily or uncharitably or you name it. But few things outside actual criminal trials require 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. That would be silly and impractical. Many people, for instance, believe OJ Simpson is guilty of murder and they're neither immoral nor tyrants for thinking it. Trotting out 'innocent until proven guilty' is even weirder and less applicable as some sort of substitute for 'there's a thing in this newspaper article I don't like or agree with'. One can just say that instead of reciting some strident and inapplicable phrase.
Sort of. It's a technical detail of US criminal justice. If it was some moral basis of all justice, you'd have to explain why civil justice is 'immoral'.
I hate seeing the US policy discarded because it's "irrelevant"
I don't think anyone did that - if anything, you're seem to be elevating something you're very familiar with to some sort of universal principle mainly on the basis of that familiarity. And anyone who disagrees is a tyrant, somehow?
We make all sorts of nuanced judgements, even about other people's criminality, all the time. Sure, it's best not to judge without basis or too hastily or uncharitably or you name it. But few things outside actual criminal trials require 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. That would be silly and impractical. Many people, for instance, believe OJ Simpson is guilty of murder and they're neither immoral nor tyrants for thinking it. Trotting out 'innocent until proven guilty' is even weirder and less applicable as some sort of substitute for 'there's a thing in this newspaper article I don't like or agree with'. One can just say that instead of reciting some strident and inapplicable phrase.