> For conviction I agree, for suspicion not so much. Suspicion isn't guilt. The authorities should suspect people based on probable cause, courts should presume innocence and require the state builds a flawless argument beyond reasonable doubt.

Except it doesn't work like that in practice. It would be nice if it did. Often a person can be found guilty simply by jury in a trial based on what they think a person might have done. That's reality, and it is the case in western would countries not some obscure dictatorship.

By your logic, we shouldn't arrest murderers? Even if they're caught on video, it could be a deepfake. It all comes down to people testifying something is real. it always comes down to convincing a jury or a judge that the defendant is guilty.

This is a common pattern I'm seeing in recent discussions. There is a practical problem, so instead of fixing the problem, let's not use the system entirely. Perhaps for victimless crimes I would agree with you, but it is not for you or I but for the victims or whoever is survived by them to relinquish their demand for justice.

For serious crimes, suspicion must be corroborated by evidence. hear-say, accusations or eye-witness testimony alone can't be used to even begin a trial.