One of the biggest issues with thinking innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to courts is that courts are not divorced from public opinion.  The whole &#x27;tough on crime&#x27; stance happens because in public opinion, a guy is guilty with far less evidence than the court needs.  If the court cannot also find them guilty, the public sees this as a problem.  Nothing direct happens, but as this occurs time and time again people begin to vote for those who don&#x27;t allow this &#x27;miscarriage of justice&#x27; to continue to occur.  So over time, the public selects for people who act in ways that do not support innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  DAs willing to ignore evidence.  Judges willing to present cops as being more trustworthy a source (such as allowing them to show up in uniform).  And even crime labs who are a little willing to help convict the guy who is &#x27;obviously&#x27; guilty.<p>In short, because public opinion eventually impacts the courts through some path, if the people don&#x27;t believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the case of public opinion, then the courts will eventually lose that focus as well.