Until proven otherwise

Do you think that a person suspected of a crime is the same as an ordinary citizen? For example, he should not be fired, etc., like someone who is accused, for example.

Shouldn't it have been written like that straight from the start?
A person who is suspected, in my opinion, is like any other person. A person against whom an indictment has been filed, there is a place to limit him to positions to which his accusations are relevant. If the suspect admits to the acts or it is clear that there is a flaw in them and the entire examination is only to check that it crosses the criminal threshold, there is also a place to limit him to certain positions.

In cases where in normal life I would not change my attitude and behavior towards the person, then it is clear that I have no reason to do so under legal restriction. But in cases where in normal life I do change my attitude towards a person based on suspicion alone, for example suspicion of theft when there is a persistent rumor about him, or an investigation is underway against him, or I saw a video of the theft and the character there looks quite similar to that person, then I will privately treat him differently, in order to reduce my risk expectancy. In other words, in a public system we forego reducing the risk expectancy because of what? Because in your opinion it goes against the value of the presumption of innocence and we as the public will absorb the loss in full, or because as a public policy we must also consider the loss of that suspect in cases where he is not guilty and thus the damage expectancy (when taking into account both the damages that could be caused if that suspect is indeed guilty and continues in his ways, and also the damages caused to the suspect who is not guilty) is negative. I was unable to formulate the question clearly, and I hope that at least from the length it will be possible to understand.

You could also ask to punish him based on suspicion. There is natural justice regardless of considerations of expectancy. In addition, it also prevents false accusations.

Regarding natural justice, why does it require us to ignore probabilities?? There should be a continuum: the stronger the suspicion (vague suspicion, investigation opened, suspicious video, indictment, conviction), the stronger the restrictions. Regarding punishment, there is clearly a difference between violating vested rights such as the right to property and freedom of movement, and between disqualification from public positions such as chief tax officer.

You could argue the same thing about punishment. I don't see any difference. Why don't they really act sequentially? Because intuitively it's not right. Because there will be false accusations. Because there is a threshold of guilt below which there is no reason to do anything.. See Tory on faith as a gamble.

This?
Faith and Betting: Two Types of Decision Making Under Uncertainty (column 661)
https://mikyab.net/posts/88175/

yes