Presumption of innocence is an important part of our standard of justice. It is a term you have heard plenty of times in the past. The idea on the face of it is quite simple. If you or anyone else is accused of a crime, you are “presumed innocent until proven guilty”. That phrase was coined by William Garrow more than a century ago.[1] The idea however dates back as far as sixth century in Roman law from Digest of Justinian which states Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat – “Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies.
It is a principle that is considered an international human right under the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a few other country’s laws and constitutions. Surprisingly the presumption of innocence is not directly stated in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court, however, has since ruled that the Due Process clause (14th Amendment) of the Constitution does include the presumption of innocence via Coffin v. United States (1895)[2][3] and In re Winship (1970).[4]
Specifically the presumption of innocence can be expressed in detail with the following points [5]:
- With respect to the critical facts of the case—whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime—the state has the entire burden of proof.
- With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.
- The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.
After understanding what the presumption of innocence is, it is equally imperative to understand the reasons why it is so important. Presumption of guilt would require the accused to make a negative claim, meaning that the accused claims something did not happen and takes on the burden of proving it. Negative claims are substantially harder to prove and are sometimes unfalsifiable. If someone were to make the negative claim that no swans are black. You could falsify this claim by showing that at least one black swan exists. In contrast, a famous example of a negative claim that is unfalsifiable is Russell’s Teapot, which states:
… If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. …
Bertrand Russell was trying to point out that there can be negative claims that are unfalsifiable. Proving this claim is false is not possible. Therefore the burden of proof is on that of the positive claim, a claim that asserts the teapot does exist. The reverse would force you to just assume that the teapot does exist without any way to verify it.
The presumption of innocence also has more tangible implications with respect to our government. When you are convicted of a crime, it results in the government then imposing something on you. It could be a fine, jail time, required community service and more. This means that the government is allowed to take away some of your rights as a citizen once you have been convicted. Freedoms and rights are obviously very important and should not be easily infringed upon. As a result we need to be very vigilant if and when we are going to allow the government to come in and strip an individual of their rights and freedoms.
In Practice:
The Salem Witch Trials in 1692 saw the death of at least 19 people in large part due to a concept called spectral evidence. The concept was you claim you saw a vision of them afflicting you. This should have been treated as just a claim, but instead it was treated as evidence of being bewitched by the accused. Due to the fact that people were so afraid it lead them to rather assume guilt than continue the presumption of innocence.
In the 1940’s to 1950’s McCarthyism was spreading across America. McCarthyism was a period of time where people were accused of supporting Communism and as a result thousands of people lost their jobs. Some people who were accused were not always told who was making the accusation or what the accusation specifically was. Just the accusation alone was often enough to lose their job and be black listed from other jobs.
In both instances above, they revolve around people being deeply afraid of something. People were accusing others to try and avoid being accused themselves. They were also both willing to set aside the presumption of innocence because they rather accuse someone else in an attempt to avoid being accused themselves.
False accusations may not be a wide spread issue, however we must acknowledge that they do exist. False accusations can sometimes be intentional. Such as the case at Duke University where three lacrosse players were accused of raping an exotic dancer. It later came out that the accusation was fake and all of the charges against the three players were dismissed. Not before the coach of the lacrosse team was forced to leave his job. It also did not stop people from protesting the players, holding up signs saying that they should be castrated and sending them death threats.
Sometimes the false accusations are a matter of mistaken identity. A salon was robbed in Norfolk, Va in 1997. A few weeks after the robbery, one of the employees of the salon saw a man named Messiah Johnson at a restaurant, called the police and claimed that he was the one that robbed them. Despite no finger prints matching, and having an alibi, he was sentenced to jail on the basis of the eye witness testimony. He was sentenced to 132 years in prison, and no that is not a typo. After 21 years in jail, he was released from prison after the real perpetrator was found and confessed.
In all of the examples listed, it does not mean that when accusations are made we do nothing. What it does mean is that after an accusation is made the next step is to attempt to collect evidence and determine if what is being accused actually happened. Believing the accuser because they are part of a particular category, say women, or because you cannot come up with a motivation for their accusation other than that it happened is justifying the accusation. It is in direct contradiction to presumption of innocence. To put it another way, Supreme Court Justice White wrote in the majority opinion of Coffin v. United states, that the accused are protected by conviction until evidence takes it away:
The law presumes that persons charged with crime are innocent until they are proven by competent evidence to be guilty To the benefit of this presumption the defendants are all entitled, and this presumption stands as their sufficient
protection unless it has been removed by evidence proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
This quote illustrates a view on presumption of innocence that the accused is armed with everything needed to retain their innocence until and only until such time as there is sufficient evidence to show the contrary. This can quickly fall to the way side as people see the accused obtain a lawyer or because they elect not to testify. This is described in point three of the specifics of presumption of innocence above. Presumption of innocence is a foundation of justice in America. To paraphrase founding father Benjamin Franklin, who was echoing Voltaire, that it is better a guilty man go free than an innocent one to suffer. I hope that we all keep this ideal in mind as we see scandals more often play out in the media. The presumption of innocence does not have to only pertain to criminal trials but to our interactions with other people as well. I will leave you with one final quote from the majority opinion of Coffin v United States:
The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. – U.S. Reports: Coffin v. United States
Sources:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Garrow
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States
- https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep156432/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Winship
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence#cite_note-Mueller-19
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
- https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/duke-lacrosse-team-suspended-following-sexual-assault-allegations
- https://wtkr.com/2018/04/25/norfolk-man-pardoned-after-132-year-sentence-is-released-from-prison/
- https://wtkr.com/2017/07/23/only-on-3-man-serving-132-years-for-robbery-speaks-out/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZUrDeilxLQ
I Talk A Lot 