Consider the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." One side says some crimes are so horrible that we should bend the rules of burden of proof a little bit so that people like mass murderers or child rapists can't go free and hurt more people. The other side says the current burden of proof and the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" might allow many guilty people to go free, but in the long run the principle is better for society because it also reduces the odds of innocent people being convicted of these heinous crimes. Which side is using utilitarian reasoning? The answer: both sides. Both measured the results based on the end benefits to society as a whole. And you see this type of reasoning every
