DISSENT must be consistently assumed...

Judiciously, legally, politically and socially, INNOCENCE must be consistently assumed until evidence clearly indicates GUILT beyond each and every shadow of doubt, else partiality, inequality even villainy, atrocity as well tyranny upon ACCUSATION alone.

Also logical thus ethical, perhaps more so as prerequisite...

Intimately, privately, communally and publicly, DISSENT must be consistently assumed until evidence clearly indicates CONSENT beyond each and every shadow of doubt, else partiality, inequality even villainy, atrocity as well tyranny upon PRESUMPTION alone.

To note and exemplify, gravely erred of course are both the recently popular proposition favoring the accuser, as well the longstanding argument favoring implied consent (as two of many examples). In either case, the presumptuous slope is quite slippery, inevitably devolving to vicious abuse upon the accused and/or dissented Individual hence his/her Life, Liberty and Property constantly at risk. No good can come from such emotionally charged and conveniently driven premises other than preferential, excessive therefore detrimental outcomes.

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.

Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.