Standard of Guilt

I left this as a comment discussing Roy Moore, and how he should be described as an “accused pedophile” rather than a “pedophile”, because he’s “innocent until proven guilty”:

“Innocent until proven guilty” is only the standard for criminal convictions, where we’re depriving the accused of their fundamental freedom (and thus warrant a very high bar to clear). It is not, and should not, be the standard in all circumstances.

For example, in civil litigation, there is no presumption of culpability, nor presumption of lack thereof, and so the determination is made based on the majority of the evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.

When deciding whether to elect someone to a very powerful public office, “totally OK until proven guilty in court” isn’t an acceptable standard.

That goes double for someone who was a prosecutor and a judge and thus was responsible for determining how justice was enacted (or not) in Alabama.