Such systems must be built in a way that allow to correct errors, because it's well known that errors are made.
There is no such thing as a valid reason to skip the part where you have to prove guilt. Even for a judge. Frankly especially for a judge. Everyone else has the excuse that they aren't lawyers. What's a judges excuse?
I don't understand how someone could even think this.
Suppose he stole the loot and refuses to say where it is, but he really put it in a bank safe deposit box. The bank teller remembers him coming into the bank with a big pile of loot and then leaving without it, so you use the teller's statement to get a warrant to search the box, get the camera footage from the bank, etc. There are many ways to prove something without the suspect's cooperation.
How is the alternative supposed to work? The judge tells you to answer a question you'd only know the answer to if you were actually guilty and then you stay in jail for as long as you don't answer it? What are you supposed to do if you're innocent?
Huge citation needed.
Also all you would have to prove is that they're refusing to comply. How disobedient can they really get without proof existing?
Now obviously this entire line of reasoning would be completely nullified if there were examples to the contrary or if any of the things mentioned had been adjudicated before but
Wait, what? Have you served on a criminal jury in the US? There most definitely is a presumption of innocence, and the judge will remind the jury of this multiple times in the course of the trial.
The burden is on the prosecution (I.e. the state) to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Source: jury duty.
I am not a law genius but it seems like in real life since judges can charge plaintiffs, defendants, lawyers, and witnesses with contempt the whole “infinity jail is on the table for every person in the room” thing would make people less likely to want to engage with the civil or criminal justice systems.