It is a commonly accepted phrase: A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

Generally, an accused is entitled to be released pending trial, provided there are assurances they will appear for trial. Federal law creates exceptions. One is if the accused will pose a “danger to any person or the community” if released before trial.

The actions of the Jan. 6, 2021 Washington DC rioters were reprehensible. Those responsible might be found guilty at a trial, after presentation of evidence, and after a decision by a jury. What should be their status until trial? In some high-profile cases, accused rioters have been released. In other cases, judges appear to be bending the rules to keep the accused in jail. Many defendants surrendered voluntarily when contacted by police. Several have limited assets, cannot afford bail, and do not have passports. They are not a flight risk. Still, they remain in jail. Why?

Some courts appear to have pre-judged the accused as guilty. Judges have used the accused’s words and actions from Jan. 6 against them to deny pretrial release. The judges’ reason that the alleged behavior shows the accused poses a “serious danger to the community.” Isn’t that for a jury to decide?

This approach turns the presumption of innocence on its head. Criminal conduct is assumed and guilt is presumed. Is it due to the political content of their speech and the political nature of their actions? The result is they remain in jail before their cases are presented to a jury.

This is not a left/right political spectrum issue. If we have a “justice” system, the rules should apply equally to all. Presuming guilt and holding someone in prison before they are proven to be guilty undermines the foundation of that system.