In order for there to be "other examples"...there would have to be a first one.
Yours is not an example of such a limitation.
If it's true that only a small minority of rape accusations are deemed false by police forces, and if it's true that there is chronic under-reporting of rapes by victims, and if it's true that the conviction rate for rapists is nonetheless astonishingly low, would these not constitute examples of limitations which follow (in part) from using the innocent until proven guilty principle?
The presumption is a legal distinction, MD. It presumes until someone actually is found guilty by the judicial process prescribed...that person will be deemed innocent. Even if 99.9% of all people arrested and charged are found guilty...that presumption would make complete sense.
My central point is that the presumption of innocence carries with it the presumption of an equal society.
The presumption of innocence carries with it the notion that until a person is actually convicted of a crime by the methods prescribed by law...that person should be presumed to be innocent. It says absolutely nothing about an "equal society"...whatever you suppose that to mean.
It says we can proceed on the presumption that everyone is as innocent as everyone else.
It most assuredly does not. It merely says that until someone is actually convicted of a crime by the methods prescribed by law...that person should be presumed to be innocent.
Whereas it seems everyone is not as innocent as everyone else when it comes to issues of sexual assault.
You can substitute "murder" for "sexual assault" in your sentence here, MD...and it would read the same. Obviously some are guilty and some not...but the law, correctly in my opinion, demands that we consider the person innocent until proven guilty.
We actually have examples of the opposite of this principle at work in stop and search laws, which presume guilt in the cases of people of colour. So the principle is already not universally observed.
Obviously envisioning a replacement principle on which to base our system of law is not within my compass. I don't believe I have attempted it, nor will I. However I do venture the criticism(s) above and invite further discussion.
I'll be happy to discuss this with you for as long as you like...because the presumption of innocence makes lots of sense to me...and, respectfully as possible, your arguments against it do not.