Does guilt or innocence change what we are permitted to do to people? In the cases where we know the guilt or the innocence of the party then I think it is right that it does. For example were I to keep forgetting my posts, Dr. Sorensen would be correct in penalizing my grade. In this situation because I am guilty of not posting as often I should, anything that would have been reasonably constraining Dr. Sorensen would be removed and he may do as he will. Though I am not certain if I have captured the essence of that I want to say; also it does not seem that this was a very good example. Suppose for example we have a number of convicted criminals; by way of their vice they have caused some injury to society therefore we me be justified in depriving them of their civil rights for such a time as they are "paying their dues to society". One might even say that by their criminal acts they have broken the accord between citizen and state and as such automatically forfeit their rights by going outside of them in the first place. Thus the constraint we might have to respect the civil rights of a particular individual is removed by way of their guilt.
Whether or not one actually forfeits one's civil rights upon comitting a criminal act
is in this case irrelevant, I merely wished to point out a case in which guilt might be a relevant factor in constraint. It seems though that there are many situations where guilt or innocence might be a factor if we only knew how they applied. For example, say that a Nazi Officer moves to Argentina and becomes a farmer. People might treat the man like every other Argentine farmer and as such might be constrained from taking his land, killing his cattle, et cetera. Say that we never find out about this man's dark past and that he contributes to the local society and doesn't cause any trouble. Unless he made a point of telling anyone, no one would know that he was responsible for x number of tortures and killings. Knowing would only make apparent whether or not one was still constrained by morality regardless of whether or not you actually are. For all practical purposes in this situation we are still justified in being constrained by morality because we do not know that this man has the past that he does. So it is no wrong(in the ordinary sense) to not impinge on his well being, civil rights et cetera.