World gone mad: People angry about "innocent until proven gulty"

[VGPolyglot]

Ka-pi96 said:

contestgamer said:

Yeah that sucks. But being the victim of crime is worse than being falsely accused. So we recalibrate the justice system to show empathy foremost to potential victims of crime and second to potential criminals of crime. If you're falsely accused you need to prove it, and if you prove it the false accusor will receive serious consequences. It's the same as the current system, we're just moving the burder off crime victims and shifting them on to (mostly) criminals.

Being falsely accused is being a victim of crime though.

And how exactly do you prove your innocence? For example when I (jokingly) accused you of stealing a watch, how would you prove you didn't? There's only 3 ways I can think of to do that. Prove that nothing was stolen in the first place or that it was someone else that stole it. But why on earth should you do either of those things? The police are the ones getting paid to investigate that kind of stuff, it shouldn't be up to you to do it (not as if you could from a jail cell anyways). And the 3rd way? Constantly recording everything you do to prove that you didn't do anything illegal. Why should people have to do that?

Not to mention that your way would hurt minority groups the hardest too. How many times do you think muslims are accused of being terrorists without proof? How do they prove they're not? And why should they have to constantly prove they're not terrorists just because they're muslim?

Actually, considering what he's said in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if that's why he supports it.