Maybe not that large of a problem on a world scale, but it does feel very unjust to me.
“Innocent until proven guilty” may be the best we have for a legal standard but it is far from perfect and applying it anywhere outside of the legal system is a mistake regardless of how you feel about innocent people losing their careers through the court of public opinion.
Outside of the legal system “innocent until proven guilty” is a very common cause of the revictimisation of victims.
Could you elaborate a bit on how that works? I'm not saying you should actively vocalise that you don't believe a victim, just that you shouldn't be piling on to someone or contributing to them losing everything if you don't know whether they're guilty and are otherwise unfamiliar with the victim.
Legal process fails plenty of times, saying that you are morally obligated to believe in its judgements is insane. The only obligations legal judgements place are upon the people being tried and the apparatus of the state, nothing else.
No, there isn't. Innocence is precisely the absence of guilt; to be innocent is to be not guilty and vice versa.
I'm not saying you should have blind faith in the legal system, but I am saying that I think it's morally better to withhold judgment until it has run its course. Additionally, if you are otherwise unrelated to a certain case, I would still be inclined to have less trust in your own judgment than in the judgment of people who spent far more time on it than you, unless you have specific reason to believe they're especially likely to have ruled incorrectly other than not trusting the process, such as conflicts of interest.