It doesn’t apply to social situations, job interviews or casting for TV shows. And it can’t be co-opted by men to defend each other from the social consequences of their poor choices. The presumption of innocence is the most basic principle underpinning our system of justice. In an imperfect world, it is our strongest weapon in redressing the power imbalance between the state and an individual it accuses of committing a crime. We also place the burden of proof on the state and require the state to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The standard we demand for a criminal trial however, was never meant to be imposed on how we behave in social situations. Loading A criminal conviction for a serious offence often results in a prison sentence. No matter how often we read about horrendous crimes and tell each other “prison is too good for them”, incarceration is a serious matter. It is more than just depriving someone of their freedom, it means taking them away from daily contact with their family, removing them from their community and their work. A prison sentence irrevocably alters someone’s future and removes much of the dignity from their present. We take from prisoners the most basic choices about life: what to wear, where to go, when to eat, who to be with, and confine them to a small space full of dangerous people. Such punishment is warranted in some cases, but the state’s power to deprive its citizens of liberty is not ever something to be treated lightly.

Louis CK took a career hiatus of just over a year. Don Burke endured some uncomfortable media interviews and is no longer able to host his own show on TV. Chris Brown served six months community service then went on to top Billboard charts, win a Grammy, receive another felony assault conviction and release five new albums. Bill O'Reilly maintained a highly lucrative career for decades before being fired. Brett Kavanaugh has a life-long appointment to the US Supreme Court. Donald Trump is the President of the United States. This list could go on and on and on. None of these men have been deprived of their liberty. None of them are facing a huge power imbalance that threatens their freedom. Their accusers are backed by social media not the power of the state. The principles that rightly underpin the criminal justice system do not apply here. The standard of proof in civil trials is much lower than in criminal court because civil cases are between people, not between the state and an individual. The power imbalance is not as high and the consequences of getting it wrong are not as severe. Where criminal cases have to prove guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”, civil suits only need to prove their case “on the balance of probabilities”. The burden of proof is still on the accuser, but the standard of proof is lower. Loading Legal principles do not have to be enforced outside a courtroom but, even if they did, the standard of proof between two individuals is: who do we believe on the balance of probabilities? Even if there are doubts, who is more likely to be telling the truth? What are the consequences for being wrong? Might a sexual predator continue to hold a lucrative position of power and acclaim? Is that a worse outcome than a man wrongfully accused having to take a year away from a global career? Who suffers more, a man wrongfully accused or a woman wrongfully disbelieved? It’s an impossible question to answer, which is why we apply the best judgement we can at the time. Knowing that we might be wrong sometimes and the consequences will be unfair, but doing nothing is not an option.