[s_q_b]

So was Charles Manson before his trial.

I'm saying he's guilty, not a court. It's one man's opinion, not a finding of fact or law.

The fact pattern isn't really in dispute here. Do you really deny he performed the acts of which he is accused?

EDIT due to reply limit: Fine, its your opinion that I'm a child molester, but since you can't enforce it, I have little reason to care.

In the instant case, I am perfectly capable of examining an indictment and concluding as to its likely veracity. It doesn't make the person legally guilty, but in my personal unbinding and most modest opinion, morally so.

[Evolved]

Fortunately for us, you're not a judge/prosecutor and fortunately for the accused, "guilty until proven innocent" isn't law but merely a song by Jay-Z.

[dllthomas]

The options aren't "innocent until proven guilty" or "guilty until proven innocent" - there's also "what is the evidence that I've seen telling me is most likely so far?" Actions based on this should be heavily checked by recognition of your uncertainty, but if you are wanting to come to the correct answer most often, you'll use something closer to that. The purpose of the justice system is not "to come to the correct answer most often", but to determine action (typically severe action) and so needs that check.