If criminals are presumed innocent until proven otherwise what does that make the victims presumed to be lying until the suspect is proven guilty, unless it is a case involving harassments or sexual misconduct. Then it always seems to be just the opposite the alleged victim is supposed to be believed without question while the burden of prof to the contrary rest on the accused meaning they are automatically guilty until proven innocent.
And where does the victimless crime come from if there was a crime committed wouldn't there have to be a victim somewhere?