Innocent until proven guilty is a part of the United States Judicial System in which it is argued that any harmful action that did not result in a criminal conviction must not result in any repercussions to the person who was accused of committing the action.

It is based on the same principle that is held central in many legal systems.

Problems with this stance include:

not all harmful actions actually being illegal in the first place (for example, many jurisdictions only make sexual harassment an offense in the workplace, if then)

the considerable time, energy and monetary burden assumed by victims who report harmful acts, in interacting with the police, lawyers and the judicial system

evidence of considerable underreporting of harm to oppressed groups, lack of prosecution when reported, and low rates of conviction when tried

the nation-state is a very powerful entity, typically having effectively unlimited financial resources and reserving the right to commit violence to itself, against which almost any individual person has a considerable disadvantage. It makes sense to hold such an entity to extremely strict burden of proof in exercising its power, relative to, say, a geek conference or meetup!

In practice, this system is essential to a judicial system in a government to perform properly. Supposing it was reversed (guilty until proven innocent), suing an entity would be easy as it is difficult, in law, to disprove an event occurred.

Related stances include, eg, the position that accusations of harassment events should be tried in an open public hearing of community members or before an informal jury, etc.

See also

Name and shame for the pros and cons of publicly disclosing harassment and abuse.

Fair trial for suggestions that geek communities should set up their own court-like systems for dealing with harassment or abuse.