> vengeance than actual justice

Retribution (not vengeance) is a legitimate component of justice. Not the only one.

But if there is a singular summary of the last decade’s failed attempts at criminal-justice reform, it’s in ignoring the very human need for retribution in resolving injustice.

> there is a presumption of innocence which also applies publicly

This is never universally applied. Particularly when it comes to crimes of corruption, which this case approaches.

> Retribution (not vengeance) is a legitimate component of justice. ...

> if there is a singular summary of the last decade’s failed attempts at criminal-justice reform, it’s in ignoring the very human need for retribution in resolving injustice

Many people would agree with you, imho, but it's not a truth universally acknowledged. I don't see what good it does: is it more than some good feeling for the injured party? That seems not worth the costs and risks, including promotion of violence (in some form) as a solution to problems, rationalization of personal retribution and vengence (probably few distinguish between those terms), and possible harm to an innocent person (if the wrong person is convicted).

If retribution only benefits the injured party and not the state, and if I'm the injured one and don't want it, can I opt out of it?

I do value deterrence and being made whole, and sometimes those overlap with retribution. And I'll say this about retribution: it could make it possible for the criminal and victim to move forward, including if they know each other. The criminal has paid their debt to the victim and guilt is absolved. Insufficient payment might undermine that.

> it's not a truth universally acknowledged. I don't see what good it does

It keeps people from taking the law into their own hands. We can debate the merits of retribution, but not that it’s a seemingly-innate part of human nature. (It’s an open question if we can condition it out of ourselves. But that’s pretty serious social engineering that, to my knowledge, no society has achieved. We aren’t bonobos.)

> If retribution only benefits the injured party and not the state, and if I'm the injured one and don't want it, can I opt out of it?

Our sense of retribution is more than transactional. There is a perception of collective harm that’s explicit in our system of public prosection—it’s the people versus a criminal, not the victim.

> It keeps people from taking the law into their own hands.

Definitely an upside, though the punishment of trial (and the victim being heard), conviction, repayment, etc. may be sufficient for that.

> We can debate the merits of retribution, but not that it’s a seemingly-innate part of human nature. (It’s an open question if we can condition it out of ourselves. But that’s pretty serious social engineering that, to my knowledge, no society has achieved.

Here I think you overstate it. I believe a large number of people, maybe the majority, do not choose retribution.

'Innate' has become a loaded word, and one used (not necessarily in this case) politically to make the speaker's argument into something inevitable. Stepping back from that:

Lots of things are 'innate'; people focus on the more harsh ones, but so are goodness, a desire for justice, fairness, love, hunger, laziness, sleepiness, etc. And innate drives are not all-powerful or determinative; some are barely noticeable and some powerful, often the same one varying greatly (consider sex drive, for example). And of course our actions depend, very much, on our will and reason and choice.

> This is never universally applied

It is in other countries, is my point. In the US, anyone arrested has their mugshot and name plastered for everyone to see, regardless of merit

> It is in other countries, is my point

Give me one example. Where e.g. a public figure or terrorist suspect is kept under wraps until they’re found guilty.

The Christchurch terrorist in New Zealand. Unlike in the US, his name and mugshot were never plastered around media, and his name is still popularly unknown.

Multiple footballers in the UK who were accused of sexual harassment. People tried guessing who they are, but all police released was "a footballer in his 20s from Manchester is under investigation for sexual harassment/assault/etc".

> Christchurch terrorist in New Zealand. Unlike in the US, his name and mugshot were never plastered around media, and his name is still popularly unknown

Not one example of it being done properly. One country. (I’ll grant New Zealand as a likely candidate.)