Again, what presumption of innocence? The bank failed, they should have to give up the bonuses and stock gains. It should be statutory to prevent a moral hazard.

> medieval practice

Calm down, no one said we should hang, draw and quarter them, exile them, or do anything untoward. It's a capitalist system, and this is a capitalist penalty.

You said "1,000 years ago if the crops failed, and the peasants started going hungry, either the priest or the lord was blamed."

I'm saying we should not look to the distant past for guidance on how to handle situations like this.

The presumption of innocence applies here because we shouldn't punish individual bank employees unless we demonstrate to a jury of their peers that they broke a law that existed at the time they broke the law. The default should be they keep their bonus and if they broke the law, they pay a fine. Fortunately they are protected by the constitution, there is no possible way the government can take their money without a trial.

It's an analogy about leadership? I didn't suggest a medieval punishment and I obviously recognize we don't do bills of attainder in America. I'm speaking for what the average person is feeling. Literally started off with saying "the average person is sick of seeing rich people get away with it".

But again, what presumption of innocence? I'm saying that if you are a bank CEO and your bank fails, it doesn't actually matter whether a reasonable choice was made or not. Bank failures affect all Americans, so there should be a penalty for causing that disruption. Most people would call that fair.