[smegger001]

>How strange to negate mountain loads of evidence with a single religion-like self-defending assumption.

He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law before a jury of his peers, who must be convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Do we all know he did it? Yes. But a jury hasn't ruled on it yet and until then he is legally speaking innocent. He must have his chance to face his accusers and present his arguments and present his own evidence.

Due processes must be fallowed. If we don't fallow due process and presume innocence than anyone can be imprisoned at any time for anything on trumped up charges because prosecutors and police simply say they have evidence whether or not it is true. at that point trials are nothing but farce and we have fallen into tyranny.

>Of course you would believe that yours is a society of Law if you actively ignore all evidence to the contrary.

While our society is far from living up to our own ideals, giving up on those ideal because we haven't always met them is not the answer; we should instead endeavor to adhere to them more fully. To do otherwise is nothing but a societal nihilism.