Comment by Cthulhu_
12 hours ago
A crime is a crime even before a judge rules over it. Sure, innocent until proven guilty, but most people know when they're doing something wrong and then don't do it.
Of course, this is a lot more grey area for copyright violations etc because it's a civil matter.
> innocent until proven guilty
Pithy but untrue. The verbose-but-correct statement is about procedural prerequisites: Government officials are forbidden to imprison or fine you until your guilt is proved, to an impartial and properly-instructed jury in a fair trial, beyond a reasonable doubt. (The Scots have the better formulation for criminal cases: Guilty, or not proved.)
Illustration: OJ Simpson was found not guilty [sic] in his criminal trial. So he couldn't be imprisoned. But then a different jury found — under the lower, preponderance of the evidence standard — that Simpson did indeed murder his ex-wife and the other guy. The latter case was the civil action for wrongful death, brought by the survivors of his victims. The survivors won a $33.5M verdict. Simpson's assets were seized, and sold at a court-ordered auction, to pay the judgment — including his Heisman Trophy.
What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
"Innocent until proven guilty" concerns whether someone did a crime, not whether something is a crime.
An action can clearly be a crime, but it might be unclear if you did that action.
> "Innocent until proven guilty" concerns whether someone did a crime
See my upthread comment: "Innocent until proven guilty" is catchy but false.
Only our legal institutions and the frameworks they create can decide if any specific act is a crime.