You're doing exactly the thing people-who-are-oft-scapegoated are afraid of: equating "extremely probable" with "incontrovertibly proven."
In an actual trial, for a conviction to take place, evidence would have to be presented that leaves no room for reasonable doubt--which is to say, the evidence would have to effectively take Y/Z/etc. out of consideration.
We chose this standard because we, as a society, decided that there was something more important than making sure "justice is served" in all cases: making sure nobody has the power to condemn innocents at a whim by making up an "extremely probable" accusation.
But the court of public opinion has no such strict standard, even though the punishments it hands out can be far worse.
No, probable is probable. I'm happy to talk about unlikely corner cases, in an appropriate sidebar. I think anyone pushing them as a primary talking point has their priorities misaligned and is tilting at windmills.
In an actual trial, for a conviction to take place, evidence would have to be presented that leaves no room for reasonable doubt--which is to say, the evidence would have to effectively take Y/Z/etc. out of consideration.
We chose this standard because we, as a society, decided that there was something more important than making sure "justice is served" in all cases: making sure nobody has the power to condemn innocents at a whim by making up an "extremely probable" accusation.
But the court of public opinion has no such strict standard, even though the punishments it hands out can be far worse.