Talk:Presumption of innocence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposal: Consolidate with other articles

This article should at least be consolidated with Conclusive presumption, Rebuttable presumption, and Presumption of fact, for a new Presumption (law) article that can also explore the full range of kinds of presumption, such as presumption of constitutionality or unconstitutionality, presumption of nonauthority, etc.

--The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jon Roland (talk • contribs) 03:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

No, certainly NOT. The principle of presumption of innocence was one of the important and monumental maxims of Cesare Beccaria c.s. who advocated the important reforms during the Enlightenment, that resulted in the emergence of modern criminal law with its safeguards that (ideally) protect suspects against abuse and manipulation of cases by the prosecution. This page hase its own right of existence and should NOT be mixed up with other subjects. --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Actually deco, you raise an issue that strikes me as worth exploring. It has certain implications which I will be working on as time goes...Wblakesx 06:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)wblakesx

This might sound too obvious to include, but I think it's important. Why is presumption of innocence important as a basic human right? It's clear that under presumption of guilt, any person could be accused of any action that they don't have evidence to show that they did not commit, but on the other hand presumption of innocence necessarily lets guilty parties through the cracks on occasion, who might then harm the innocent. Is the idea that the power of the state is more dangerous and so more necessary to limit? Deco 05:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, history has shown that the power of the state will be abused if given the opportunity. Presumptions of innocence or guilt are not panaceas - innocent people can been convicted under either system. When an innocent person is convicted of a crime, it means a guilty person remains free. Thus it is not accurate to claim that 'presumption of guilt' prevents the guilty from escaping justice. There's also the matter of false alibis. Update: I read that i should sign comments, so here: 206.172.127.174 20:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Please qualify the statements in the article to make them more accurate. Deco 23:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Very well, sentence claiming 'marked advantage' removed.216.208.211.85 04:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't suggesting removing it — just a more balanced discussion of the possible advantages of a system based on presumption of guilt, and why we don't consider those advantages sufficient. Deco 20:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see possible advantages of presumption of guilt. This includes the claim that it rarely allows criminals to escape justice.

At best POG is a contradiction in terms (ie. if we require the prosecution to present evidence beyond the lack of an alibi for the accused.)216.208.211.58 21:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article claims presumption of innocence is a good thing, and criticizes governments without it. That is POV. Superm401 | Talk 02:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, would you say that claiming right to life is a good thing (and maybe criticizing governments that don't respect it) is POV? I would not. If you don't have presumption of innocence, you can be accused (and be automatically found guilty) of crimes. The next step is death penalty. Voilá! You've been stripped of your right to life through such an insignificant thing as the presumption of innocence. I'm removing the NPOV template. Habbit 10:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly most countries of the world do not have execution any more, only inprisonment. Thus the right of the victims to live overwhelms the right of the murderers to tweak themselves out of prosecution. Because of the very long life expectancy in developed countries (77 for males, 84 for women) the most significant issue of everyday life has become murder. Errenus inprisonment can always be righted in retro-spective (e.g. 250k dollars / year behind the bars) but an axeman killing another girl after being freed on technicalities cannot be undone, because no one can resurrect her. Thus to keep the institution of "Presumption of Innocence" for capital cases actually infringes on the right of the murdered and those who will be murdered when the axeman remains at large.

Sorrowfully EN.wikipedia.org (EN as in english language) is being treated as US.wikipedia.org, because the numerically superior gun-touting yankee can force their ideology into the system. Their love of violence and shotgun culture permeates many wikipedia articles. They think murders are an important boosting aspect of the economy (CourtTV, Hollywood thrillers big $ at box office, controlling the amount of negro population in Washington D.C.) and yankee measure everything with money. So they make laws that encourage murder. [anon IP]

Actually, I've noticed that it's become a soapbox for lunatics. Kade 04:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The lunacy isn't so bad as long as they keep it to the talk pages. Deco 05:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Superm401, it is a point of view, a neutral point of view. After all, everything has to have a reference point. For presumption of innocence, our reference, or point of view on the matter, is vast experience in legal precedent from the ancient world. Every article has a POV, it is the NPOV that must be adhered to for Wiki to work.

Now since I may deemed a Yankee by Sorrowfully, I feel compelled to respond to such ignorant nonsense. Most Americans do not own guns. In fact, per capita Canadians own more guns than Americans do, which the queen is still head of state over. How bloody quaint. But I guess that's what we Americans can expact for saving your collective arse from the Nazis. Most Americans do not love violence. No one think murders are an important boosting aspect of the economy. And not everything is measured with money. But hey, we did learn a great deal from the British Empire that treated its colonists so callously to begin with. Jcchat66 16:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the question of NPOV rather than the soapbox drama instigated by Sorrowfully (seriously, this isn't the opinion section of the Huffington Post), I would point out that NPOV rules do not require wikipedians to bend over backwards to avoid any kind of opinion like thing. Presumption of innocence is not only considered a basic human right, it stems from a basic principle of science (Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit-the burden of proof lies on he who asserts, not on he who negates, since, because of the nature of things, one cannot provide evidence to the negative.) NPOV doesn't mean we shouldn't hold maxims like "life is good" or "things exist" even though the SOME (Descartes in the latter example) may consider that one sided. NPOV does not require us all to be pyrrhonists and abhor conclusions. (Kiyae (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Presumption of innocence does not apply to those caught in the criminal act

>Presumption of innocence is an essential right that the accused enjoys in >criminal trials in all countries respecting human rights. It states that >the accused is presumed to be innocent until it has been declared guilty by a court.

Of course this is not fully true. A person who has been caught in the act (e.g. Reagan's shooter was subdued in situ in mere seconds) does not have presumption of innocence, because him/her doing the crime is undeniable. Maybe he is ruled not guilty eventually (due to e.g. insanity) but it does not make him innocent, because not guilty is not equal to innocence.

You're contrasting different definitions of innocence. A person can commit an act and still be considered innocent as long as they were not responsible for their actions, due for example to coercion or the inability to judge right and wrong. Even if there is overwhelming evidence, the person is still presumed innocent in the sense that although the action is easily proven, it has not been proven that the action was committed intentionally by a person in a rational state of mind. Deco 23:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Being caught in the act simply invalidates one form of defense for Counsel. Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The Prosecution still had to prove that Hinckley had actual rational malice on the brain as per the statute's reading. They failed to do this. In the court of public OPINION, yes, the person is guilty as all hell, but the Law is intentionally divorced from public opinion. Kade 04:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The presumption of innocence applies to all criminal prosecutions regardless of the apparent strength of the evidence against the defendant. Every defendant has the right through a plea of not guilty to require the state to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A plea of not guilty legally is not a denial of factual guilt - it means prove it. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambino23 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Even when a criminal is caught in flagrante delicto, he is stilled presumed innocent under Presumption of Innocence, he simply must overcome the mountain of evidence against him. (Kiyae (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

I think this misses the point: A person is "caught in the act" by some person or persons whose testimony may or may not be reliable. A court would initially presume (i.e. before any testimony had been given) that the defendant was innocent, and review that presumption in the light of evidence as and when it was presented. If the evidence was very strong - i.e. if those who "caught him in the act" were deemed to be of utmost integrity - then the presumption rightly be discarded before final judgment was given. It would certainly not be a case of the presumption of innocent not applying at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.199.124 (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to all the above points, you cannot deny someone a fair trial. Failure to presume someone innocent - even if they are definitely guilty - is tantamount to denial of a fair trial. In fact, several people have been found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt - in some cases with a confession - but had their conviction overturned because their trial was excessively biased and presumed guilt. Lastly, there are countless cases where someone is "caught in the act" but are in every regard actually innocent - they were intentionally framed and in some cases the weapon placed into their hand. This is usually followed by a classic mock trial. Happens in dictatorships all the time.

POV first sentence

I didn't read this article completely, but the very first sentence is POV. It states "Presumption of innocence is an essential right that the accused enjoys in criminal trials in all countries respecting human rights.". While this is my POV, and most of us probably share it, it *is* a POV. However, I do not know enough about the subject to NPOV it and keep it factually accurate. There was already an NPOV tag on a section in the middle, so I moved it to the top. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 15:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to deal with this based on some common sense reasoning (although like most people I don't actually support presumption of guilt.) Deco 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't require us to bend over backwards and be pyrrhonists. If the article can make the case that without Presumption of Innocence, essential human rights would be in danger, it is not POV, it is a logical conclusions. Simply because some people don't agree doesn't make it any less true. (Kiyae (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

This is indeed POV. It goes much further in saying that all countries without Presumption of Innocence do not respect human rights, when in fact one is not a requirement of the other. This is in fact a fairly modern concept, and respect for human rights preceded the concept of presumption of innocence we know of today. Another example is that in many countries, POI exists for civilian trials but not military, and that does not automatically disqualify that country from respecting human rights - a fairly broad accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.33.43.65 (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"This is in fact a fairly modern concept, and respect for human rights preceded the concept of presumption of innocence we know of today."

Depends what you call "modern". Granted, the judicial courts have ignored this right during the antiquity, the middle age... But the presumption of innocence, as a concept, was not ignored by some people. You can go as far as the IV century, with this quote of Julian The Apostate :

Can anyone be proved innocent, if it be enough to have accused him?

Julian, at the trial of Numerius, governor of Gallia Narbonensis, who was accused of embezzlement. Numerius had successfully defended himself against the prosecutor Delphidius, who in his exasperation, declared whether anyone could be found guilty if they only denied the charges, which provoked Julian's response. As quoted in Book XVIII of Ammianus's History.''
(thank you wikiquote). (Kazeazu (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC))

Presumption of Guilt

In the UK there is certain exception(s) to the presumption of innocence; one is where a drunk driver is involved in an accident, I believe there are others. I do not know where I can validate that rule so I haven't put it on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.206.32 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-22T21:26:47

The article is rediculous as this "rule" no longer functions anywhere, especially the United States. --DanielCD 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Not entirely sure about the US but in the UK it's innocent UNLESS proven, not UNTIL as until implies that guilt will be proven eventually. - CFC 15/09/07 --Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.38.88.6 (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There is (at least) one counter case in the UK. A motorist charged with not having insurance must prove his innocence, for example, by producing a valid certificate of insurance in court. Emeraude (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in the UK, the employer of a company is responsible criminally for accidents at work. If someone has an accident then the company boss is liable to end up in court, and basically has to prove that neither he nor any of his staff could have done anything "reasonably practicable" to prevent the accident. If he fails to do so then he can be convicted. This is approximately the assumption of guilt. Leevclarke (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the insurance issue, the motorist is still presumed innocent, the fact that he failed to provide proof of insurance is considered evidence of the fact that the motorist was lacking insurance. In regards to drunk drivers, that may be presumption of guilt to an extent-the driver probably can still contest the charge with the presumption of innocence. However, I know that in the US, semi-truck drivers who have exceeded their maximum drive times are automatically liable for any accidents they are involved in. For example, if a little old lady rear ends a semi driver who has been driving too long, it is still his fault. That seems like presumption of guilt. (Kiyae (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

With regard to the presumption of guilt when failing to provide an insurance certificate, this also applies to a whole series of offences where conduct is regulated by licences granted by the state. A reverse burden of proof is applied since it is impossible for the state to prove a negative. Importantly though, this does of course depend first on the state proving all the other elements of an offence (e.g. for driving without insurance, that the defendant was driving a motor vehicle on the public highway). I'd doubt whether this issue is particularly relevant to the article though, given that the existence of the rule is a precondition of fairly mundane offences being capable of being proved, since only the defendant has evidence on the issue. Stephen Knight (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Herrera v. Collins

Just copied this link over from to-be-deleted page on "actual innocence". Wikidea 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at HERRERA V. COLLINS, 506 U.S. 390 (1993),and make another run at this article. I think that the phrase "actual innocence" has as much and probably more currency in habeas law than in trial procedure. Mrees1997 20:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Should not be limited to the law

I think the confusion lies in that this subject has been narrowed to the scope of the law. It seems reasonable to assume that this concept is essential to civility and cooperation as well, for one cannot go around accusing people of anything unless they have some kind of proof. You cannot accuse someone of anything in civil society without being able to back it up, or you run the risk of making people angry and losing credibility. That holds true for any culture and any time period. For people to cooperate, they must assume they are telling the truth, within reason at least. If we go around assuming everyone is lying, how is anything going to get done at all? Presumtion of innocence is the same as presumtion that the accused is telling the truth. This is why presumption of innocence should be deemed a fundamental right for everyone, without exception. I would move to even call it self-evident. But this should definately be researched more. Jcchat66 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article misses an important point, and that is that "preseumption of innocence" really has meaning in only one place - inside a courtroom. If you are walking down the street, the "presumption of innocence" conveys nothing on you. You can be arrested for a crime and brought to trial; your "preseumption of innocence" gives you no rights until you are inside the courtroom. If a newspaper says that you have committed a crime, you have no recourse against it based on your "presumption of innocence" (you may win a libel case, but that's based on different principles having nothing to do with "presumption of innocence"). The best that the article can do on this point is talk about "journalistic ethics" (some would suggest that's an oxymoron), but again, even if a journalist violates his/her code of ethics, that doesn't give anyone a right to recover against the journalist.

(Above unsigned)

Presumption of innocence protects people on many different levels, not just the court room. A police officer must have probably cause before he can arrest you on the street, precisely because of this. Your home cannot be searched or seized without due process of law, another right of presumtion of innocence. Otherwise a court order would not be necessary.

As far as the media is concerned, they have often sheltered themselves behind freedom of speach, even though freedom of speach has nothing to do with slander or libel. Those are still very much criminal offenses, and the media loses in court often because of it. Otherwise a person's reputation could be scared for life from a false accusation by the media. A person's reputation is very important for every day life, for holding key jobs, public trust, etc. and is an exceedingly important civil issue. If you research libel and slander you will find numerous defenses for one's reputation, as it must be assumed that the person is innocent of slander or libel if the accuser cannot prove their claim. How often this is enforced, or if the media has lost any trials for libel, would be another subject indeed. Regardless of this however, innocent until proven guilty is necessary for every day social civility. Please try your best to prove otherwise. Below is an real-life example:

A car stopped unexpectedly in front of me when I was driving a large truck, forcing me to brake hard and also come to an unexpected stop. The car behind me skidded and nearly hit me. By this time the car in front of me was long gone, and the car behind me raced around me to pass. The car behind me honked theor horn and the passenger screamed at me angrilly, but they ASSUMED I had stopped for no reason, because they had not seen the car in front of me.

This is a social problem for lack of a major self-evident truth. The car behind me should not have assumed anything to keep the peace, but instead they became hostile. Could this also be part of the reason road rage has increased substnatially in America in the last decade? The concept of presumption of innocence has been lost on most people, and therefore we jump to conclusions and point fingers without knowing the facts first. This is obviously bad on many social levels.

Limited to the court room? Absolutely not. Jcchat66 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit this makes the philosophical point clearer. (Kiyae (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Outside of the law, this is normally given in idiom such as "Giving someone the benefit of the doubt". Most languages have an idiom of this meaning. Presumption of Innocence is analogous to this idiom, and while it is not limited to the law that happens to be the connotation of its primary meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.33.43.65 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Distinction between law and ethics

Unless I receive any objections, I propose to delete the paragraph "Distinction between law ans ethics" from the main article. I've known enough lawyers and researched enough legal issues to know this is completely untrue. Almost all laws have evolved from ethical and moral points of view. Murder and theft remain universally unethical and unlawful despite distinctions between law and ethics. Most laws require moral or ethical standing to be valid at all. Some states in America give custody of children to the mother in divorce because of strictly moral points of view, and may have gone too far using ethics to establish law. But as far as murder and rape are concerned, ethics and law are clearly indivisble. Jcchat66 16:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumption of guilt

The article mentions presumption of guilt For Criminal Law. Does it not apply in civil? Could this be elucidated? Further there is an issue of quazi criminal law which seems very murky and prone to abuse. I have seen and been disturbed by presumption of guilt in USA county (Miami-Dade)administrative courts ( quazi criminal ). A ticket is issued to which one must "appeal" to an administrative hearing officer (who may have no legal training or skill). ( Is this legal?) If the A.H.O rejects the 'appeal' the defendant must appeal to a real court ( can't remember if it's circuit still, it may have been transferred to county court), the A.H.O.s seem to routinely find guilt to place the burdon and expense of a proper trial on the defendant (as in kill the defendant and let god decide in death cases). This is a case I recently saw: In a hearing a homeowner was charged with parking a commercial vehicle for more than the county code allowed 1 hr. The evidence was that there was a complaint on a monday and when the code enforcement officer arrived aprox 24 hrs later he saw a commercical vehicle at the house. He ticketed it $500. The owner was renting a parking space 3 miles away at a cost of $130/mo and stated he had parked there that night. Homeowner couldn't prove it, guilty! One A.H.O. claimed to be a special master, but such claim seems innacurate. This is a rhetorical or pedagogic question in response to some notes below: if the executive is allowed the presumption of guilt what is the likely and historical outcome? I will discuss it if such discussion is wanted. Presumption of innocence is a good and NPOV in light of the alternatives. It makes the executive work at it's proper role instead of merely "rounding up the usual suspects", the socially disadvantaged. Don't forget, " every cop is a criminal..." until proven innocent. Wblakesx 20:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)wblakesx

When you are issued a ticket by a police officer you can either pay the fine or contest it in court. Presumption of innocence does not prevent a judge from taking the word of a police officer over that of an ordinary citizen. The article does mention this: Courts may prefer the testimonies of persons of certain class, status, ethnicity, gender, or political standing over those of others, regardless of actual circumstances. Pendragon39 03:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You should reread what he wrote. Even if the judge took the officer's testimony to be 100% true and overriding to the defendant, it does not show the defendant parked illegally. It's the equivalent of saying "Somebody threw an apple at my car. *The next day* I went to where the apple was thrown from, and the defendant was there." The officer is probably telling 100% the truth, and yet it does not show guilt. This is presumption of guilt 100%, the motivation being to *save face* for the officer who made a blatant mistake. Don't assume that judges make correct rulings 100% of the time. They don't. Some of them are literally politicians, and happily presume guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.33.43.65 (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pendragon. In this jurisdiction a traffic ticket leads to a pretrial hearing and an actual trial is available if one wants to contest the case. There is a rebutable presumption that the police officer will give accurate testimony based upon the presumption that he has no reason to misrepresent the truth ( of course Cops often get things very wrong for one reason or another ). How this weighs against the presumption of the defendant's innocence I am quite unsure, but the officer may have a reputation for overstepping the law or be shown to be prone to error. Further there are attorneys available at reasonable costs . Code enforcement is All under the Executive and a certain cosiness exists between extremely agressive and or negligent enforcers and hearing officers. It should be noted that this situation seems to have gotten really bad after the city bankrupted itself and the enforing agency reported that it had 'discovered new methods of raising revenue'.Wblakesx 20:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)wblakesx

Hi :) What you describe sounds like collusion. Collusion between police, their employers and judges. In such situations, the presumption of innocence remains intact only in theory. A more malicious example can be found in the movie To Kill a Mockingbird. A more recent example are American politicians demanding denial of rights for terrorists. In theory alleged terrorists are presumed innocent until proven guilty through evidence. Omit 'alleged' and you have presumption of guilt (in theory). Replace evidence with supposition and you will have it in practice. Pendragon39 00:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It is collusion, and it's well documented. If you get a corrupt judge, the police officer's testimony is actually irrelevant. You can be fined on completely illogical grounds. If the judge is elected, your main recourse is to get people to vote the judge out of office and replace him with a better politician. I've known people working in this court, and the things judges can get away with are astounding, in some cases criminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.33.43.65 (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pendragon. Yes, well put. The next conclusion might be conspiracy... to violate civil rights ? I have a feeling that if one fights to real appeals courts the agency will back down to prevent a record ( precedence too) from being made. That theoretically one could sue for tort but at great expense and little chance of altering the behavior, it's simply too profitable politically and monitarily.- wblakesx

I live in Canada and have heard stories about law enforcement in the United States. There was a documentary about highway police targeting out-of-state drivers and Canadians. It was basically a scheme to 'supplement' the county budget. Is it true that some of your police forces are managed through private companies? It should be noted that civil cases have a lower burdon of proof than criminal cases. Thus it is easier to push dubious infractions and win them by default. Pendragon39 03:43, 2 October 2006 (UT)]

There are still juridictions that make a substantial amout of money from such ticketing, or otherwise where the police have little to do but make a show to typically rich areas. I haven't heard of private police ( private gaurds yes ) but South Miami apparently has a privatized litigation section in it's city attorny's office.

For civil cases burdon of proof is preponderance of the evidence, but in a civil case between private litigants there would still be a presumption of defendants innocence, no? I suspect that many towns and munipalities are making up for lost federal money by issuing dubious "infraction" citations; what surprised me was the tenacity with which the code enforcers fought for convictions where the complaint was bald on it's face. I suspect moral is low or non existent.

Yes, presumption of innocence exists, although a police officer's word might be enough if a defendant cannot present any evidence beyond a verbal denial. I assume though, that the cases you are referring to involve additional factors and evidence? A vigorous prosecution might indicate a need to protect the reputations of traffic cops, and by extension, the revenue stream.

There are so many speeders where I live, complaints are mostly about the police not enforcing the law often enough. I regularily see drivers running stop signs with impunity.

Consider photo radar speed traps. In that system, radar tells the camera to take a picture of the offender's license plate, from which an address is obtained and a fine issued and sent through the mail. Guilty? Probably, yet you still have the right to contest the ticket. Pendragon39 00:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

'Tis odd that the presumption is less favourable at one's homestead than on the public streets. As for speeding, it seems that law is barely enforced. Strange days. With the 'broken windows' ' school of law enforcement', and mandatory minimum sentances, executive and judicial discretion seem greatly weakened. Can we have a legal system without discretion?

Would we want a legal system without discretion? Mandatory minimums were introduced because of a perception of leniency towards offenders and repeat offenders. Pendragon39 22:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There exist too many factors when it comes to traffic statutes, especially when it comes to presumption of innocence. In the common law there would be no traffic laws at all, because the common law is victim-based. No victim no crime. Traffic rules would merely help discover who was at fault when a crime (fatality, property damage etc.) occured. Insurance would not be necessary because a fatality would be dealt with harshly, and people would be fully responsible for the property damage. Under such conditions people would drive infinately more carefully, which was the intent of common law in the first place for any activity of life. Tread carefully and don't make victims. Insurance is actually buying out of accountability, and part of the reason why a cops word is taken over a citizen ... because that citizen actually paid someone else to be responsible for their own actions. The fine print of the legal code states this in many, many more words.

Too many of us allowed mandatory insurance, allowed ourselves to be licensed, and registered, without protest from the early days when cars were invented. Taking the word of a police officer over a citizen is de facto presumption of guilt, for it puts the burden of proof on the citizen. But most of us long ago gave up that right because too few people complain and are more interested in football. Now you reap what you sow. Jcchat66 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In Quebec we have Napoleonic Law (as opposed to English Common Law in the rest of Canada and US). Auto insurance is designed to protect drivers from liability in case of an accident. Reckless behavior is another story. Your premiums will go up. And no matter the premiums, it does not protect someone from having to pay a traffic fine!

Some drivers don't bother with insurance or registration. They continue to drive and hope the police don't run their plates. Would this make them ironically safer drivers?

Preferring the testimony of one class of people over another is normal human behavior. It happens all the time, including murder trials. Human beings are inherently biased. The presumption of innocence cannot always override bias. Pendragon39 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Pendragon39 question, would uninsured drivers be safer? Of course! They have much more to loose than insured drivers do. Before I turned 25 I drive without insurance because I could not afford to $200 a month penalty for being under 25 years old. Never had any tickets or accidents and I drove with intrepid perfection. As did my friends who could not afford it either, it was actually quite common, and probably still is. Of course it does not matter for some, who would be bad drivers no matter what. The wealthy and upper middle class are usually the worst offenders when it comes to traffic laws, for they have little to lose when their insurance and lawyers will keep them on the streets, no matter how many DWI's or speeding tickets they have. Even if they do loose their license they can afford a limo. Not so with the rest of the common people.

And the other remark is just simply horrid, "Preferring the testimony of one class of people over another is normal numan behavior." So are many other human behaviors, does that justify them? Absolutely not. The American, French, and even Communist Revolutionss were all attempts, with various success, to remove this horribly aristocratic mentality. Equality under the law would be completely invalidated by accepting the testimony of aristocrats (in modern usage; the wealty, politicians, socialites, etc) over the common people. Democracy is severely deminished as well, if not impossible. The Greeks knew this and struggled with it for centuries, as we struggle with it today. Accepting the testimony of a cop (who is not a different social class anyway) over a defendant is normal numan behavior only so long as we all accept this as normal. Slavery was once considered normal too for thousands of years, perpertrated by aristocracies, but finally the tide has been turned. A strict adherence to presumption of innocence is not perfect, but it goes a long way in assuring that another Roman Empire is not born, or millions are condemned to concentration camps. Jcchat66 18:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold yer horses! I'm not trying to justify inequality, elitism, racism, sexism or any form of discrimination. Humans always fall short of the ideals they claim to follow. This is the norm. Calling it normal human behavior may be cynical, but that don't mean I justify it.

Presumption of innocence is an ideal we should follow, but we know that isn't always what we do in practice. Being framed by the police for a speeding ticket is one end of the short stick - what about Guantanamo Bay? Your leaders claim it is necessary because it is not a normal situation they find ourselves in. Is that justification enough?

I wouldn't put much trust in the facade of civility that exists in developed countries. As long as we feel safe in our homes, eating three meals a day, our bills getting paid, we can afford to have and appreciate ideals like presumption of innocence and democracy. But I believe those ideals would quickly go the way of dinosaurs should our standard of living take a nosedive. Pendragon39 17:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tis nice to have stirred up some discussusion, but to continue might be better to link to a usenet or yahoo group [ ponder...].

Even before Magna Carta there were rules governing sovereigns, yet now these seem to be under incredible pressure, we are perhaps moving out of a millenium of law or myth of law. There's that Leo Strauss anti enlightenment move that looks back to Athens and far worse, to Rome ( those bundles of wood with the axe, in the senate, were called fascisti: the corporate over the individual).

Traffic cops present interesting models, and the comments above are certainly interesting, but zoning code enforcement goes that one extra step, which is after all 'a bridge too far' of invading privacy. It seems once we had these laws to use against people who's behavior was so outrageous as to cause injury, but otherwise were not enforced. Now code enforcers rumage around your property, collecting 'evidence' without a warrant, and the 'evidence' is admitted by the hearing officer since it's not a 'court of law', ONE HAS NO DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (or so say the adminisberaters of the code enforcement division) . It's as if living in an area makes one a subject to a corporation...

One can understand taxation as fees for using government money or script [ give unto Caesar...], but how can one excuse code enforcers intimidating citizens to yield rights with lies. For instance: a widowed mother had her husbands car parked in front of her house for a year, $500 fine. Previously everytime she talked of moving it her children freaked into tears, anxiety attacks. Determination of junk or abandoned status relies on many particulars including if the vehicle is worth over $250, which said vehicle certainly was, but she didn't know the law, and the adm HO who was a lawyer till he was busted for cocaine( a friend of a friend...) wasn't going to lend a hand... guilty. Sickening.

there's always Amsterdam.... Wblakesx 01:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)wblakesx

Indeed, Wiki may not be the proper place to discuss this (All your talk pages are belong to us!). It is an impromptu discussion though... until we are charged and convicted of violating Wiki rules, I propose to continue.

It's clear that in civil matters, you have less protection. The process is more "streamlined" and history shows that authorities invariably try to get away with as much as they can. Oftentimes the only way to dismantle these structures is to appeal them to a higher court. If the authorities are stubborn enough, it may even have to go before the Supreme Court. There are examples of this in Canada and some of these began as civil matters or tax-related issues.

Ignorance of the law - and your rights - are no excuse. Pendragon39 17:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pendragon, is it against the wiki rules? I would love to have some effect in these issues and this is the only place where anyone has shown an interest. It seems the municiple corporations like to play the "write the unconstitutional laws and enforce them ...when someome stands up, clear the case, off the record " unless the admin beaurocrats are particuarly stupid/evil in which case they will allow it to go to appeal and if they are overturned they simply let that case go, re-write the law ( perhaps adding a comma :) ) and play the same game till challenged. Meanwhile they have raised lots of dosh and preen themselves. It's a transparent conspiracy to deprive individuals of their rights. It also is a breaking of the constitution ( our social Contract, that is, a foundation of civil society ), everyone knows, few care, and it's difficult to "prove" as a criminal matter. It is a particuarly egregious violation of rights in that it is an invasion of ones personal space ( which has a large element of the sacred ), that is it is not in public or in someone elses space. If I were to pursue the issue it would be an investigation of the history of zoning and it's critics, and investigation of the city as a corporation... I think... I think this might be the most important area of law for the maintenence of what we think of as 'freedom'. Free to play penny ante cards, free to drink too much, free to use bad language, free to think non conforming thoughts or use ancient to 19c herbal remedies etc. As far as "ignorance of the law", I think this is changing as society becomes more complex... see legal maxims ( I thought I had seen such an article in wiki, but I just did a search and not much was there... I can't remember where I saw it, but the gist is that they are open to debate and interpretation.) Wiki editors, please show a little patience as this is a supremely important subject, indeed please join in and help stave off the fascist project which shouts 'freedom' to the world while doing backroom deals and bending the contitution for ease and cheapness of administration. Perhaps there could be a wiki article if we had the right title... Wblakesx 01:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)wblakesx

Hi Wblakesx. According to the rules, talk pages are supposed to be used to improve the article in question. I believe this article does mention the limitations to presumption of innocence.

There is an article called Corruption. Some of what was discussed appears in those related pages. Pendragon39 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

When corruption is very bad it harms the economy and worsens poverty. Pendragon39 23:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Differences between legal systems -> Original Research

This section makes many claims about how people in various countries may view different criminal justice systems vis-a-vis the presumption of innocence. References are in order here. If no evidence exists, then the entire section is borderline unverifiable. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roodog2k (talk • contribs) 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Agreed, as far as I know, in Portuguese there is no "not-guilty" one can be either guilty or innocent. I would risk saying that the same applies to the rest of the civil law systems. this part of the article is seriously biased towards the common law perspective, which is prevalent in English-speaking countries. To put it simply in the inquisitive approach the judge is trying to get all the truth as opposed to just maintaining a level field for both prosecution and defense. while this may warrant a "duller" trial it also gives more weight to the evidence as opposed to the lawyers' oratory skills. 193.95.181.54 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

193.95.181.54, first of all the presumption of innocence predates all legal systems, for it is a social idea universal to many cultures. [1] Does one go around assuming everyone is lying ot stealing? Of course not, thus social interaction requires some level of assuming good faith before making claims and pointing fingers. The scientific method also depends upon the "presumption of innocence" to work, or in essence, a theory stands as truth and in good faith until someone can prove it false. The theory does not lose its status as being assumed truth from anyone that challenges it. It remains a theory until a great deal of evidence is finally presented to dismiss it. Thus, it assumed the truth (innocent) until proven false.

Second of all, your remark about the differences between civil and common law are completely without merit and have nothing to do with this article. Jcchat66 03:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence while under appeal

I'm removing the part saying a person is still presumed innocent while their appeals are pending. It sounds wrong, and I can't find it verified anywhere, and seems particularly harmful info. It use to read:

This abbreviated form neglects the point that a person may continue to appeal a decision, and will be presumed innocent until a final decision is made. Therefore people who have been found guilty in lower courts of law, but have pending appeals, cannot have their citizen's rights (such as to vote and to be elected) stripped nor can they be permanently removed from their offices, but merely suspended.

Add it back if you find a citation proving it--Jeff 21:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Woolmington v DPP

I've added the 'golden thread' quote from Woolmington v DPP. It's directly relevant to the duty of the Prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and I was a little bit surprised that it wasn't there... it's a nice quick little statement that's common law in Commonwealth countries. LudBob 05:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Origins?

This link in reply to a question of origins (from the refdesk) as a source for a section on this (Julia Rossi (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)):

Jeralyn Merritt tries to trace The History of the Presumption of Innocence here. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The link at bottom of page provide the origins. Whether it is truly more "common law" than "civil law", I do not know. The only real difference is in the stability of one over the other. Judges at common law cannot make judgements against precedent, thus making the outcome of trial predictable. A judge at civil law may rule without such restraint, making the outcome unpredictable. On the other hand, it appears the the prosecution in civil law must seek evidence for AND against the accused, employing more of the scientific method, which in the common law is not done. The prosecution only needs to seek evidence against the accused. I don't know if any of this helps with "innocent until proven guilty" which is more of a broader social ideal than a legal concept. In any peaceful community of any culture, the concept is necessary, as people would generally become very upset if everyone went around making accusations without any facts. This is why rumors can become so destructive. It is also built into the scientific method, established as a process over 2500 years ago in Greece. When a fact is discovered, a challanger to the facts has the burden to prove that it is false, an uphill battle. Not until the evidence is overwhelming is the old fact (like the Earth being flat) is brought down and the new fact installed. Then, the cycle starts over, and the new fact is defended as the status quo, while new challengers must suffer the burden once more. Eventually, we get more facts than errors, and hopefully weed out mistakes made in the process along the way. Same with legal matters, in which we hope to free all innocent people from accusations while condemning the guilty. Thus, though it may not be spelled out in the law, it is logically the only workable system to discover more facts than errors. Jcchat66 (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent

In regards to this concept, or presumption of guilt, do people think it would apply to pornography? Pornography is often judged obscene unless someone can prove it has artistic merit. It is not assumed to have artistic merit until proven to lack it and be obscene by prosecution. This is a clear reversal of the concept. This applies to all pornography, and also to cases like Eli Langer, R. v. Sharpe, as well as Lolicon#Legal status in Canada where in either case, people are assumed guilty (now with a mandatory jail sentence) unless they can go out of their way to find someone of repute to be willing to spare time to look at the work and hope it is artistic in their personal judgement, otherwise it is 'CP' and jailable. In all cases referencing works of fiction with fictional characters, people of the imagination, not real legal persons at all. Tyciol (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, these defendants are still innocent until proven guilty. Just because a law sets a harsh sentence for what appears to you to be a minor offense that is easily established beyond reasonable doubt, has more to do with the legislature and the priorities of the voters than with the doctrine of presumption of innocence. Dcoetzee 07:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The pornography itself is the proof of guilt. Your proving it has artistic merit is like proving a killing was justifiable after the prosecution presents proof that you did the killing. Yaeh it'd be nice if the prosecutor proved that for you, but then maybe they will and maybe they won't. 75.5.100.86 (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research tag on the Notes section

I was half-tempted to nerf the second paragraph, but won't because of newbie fear. I'm not sure how the author's impressions of Spanish courtroom drama dubbing is relevant to the topic, or what it's really trying to say, and the switch to the first person hurts my brain.

Common Belief vs. Actual Practice

It appears that in a vast many cases the concept of "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" is little more then rhetoric. In many cases the accused must work as hard (or harder than the opposition) to prove his or her (or its) innocence, whether or not, there is it is a civil or criminal complaint is valid. All accused must do full due diligence and can NEVER depend on the Guilty Until Proven Innocent" concept. It has become overtly common (I choose that word with care) that one must defend and prove their innocence or their guilt must be believed as true. Bdelisle (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent

In actuallity its Guilty unitl proven innocent and its on the defendant to DEFEND oneself against allegations of law breaking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.255.85 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, (in most jurisdictions) it isn't. The presumption has to do with how you will be found in the 'middle ground' between proven guilt and proven innocence. i.e. how you would be found if no evidence was presented, which is not guilty. Your defence doesn't really come into it unless the prosecution has done enough to overwhelm the presumption. 82.23.192.190 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In actuality, in most jurisdictions, there are still plenty crimes where you have to aggressively prove your innocence, or you don't stand a chance against nothing more than a simple accusation, with no evidence at all behind it. In such cases, the case doesn't even have to make sense. Child molestation, for example. In a very real and terrifying sense, witch trials, so to speak, are still alive and well in the modern world, only the name of the types of person the public projects their fears and hatreds upon have changed from age to age, but its all still the same. The prosecution loves these cases, because they are slam dunks. All they need is someone to denounce someone else, and its money in the bank (literally, in legal fees, court fees, police and prison guard salaries, etc). The same can probably be said for rape, assault, and any other such accusation that fires the imagination and passion for vengeance of a lynch mob jury.

The problem is that most lawyers couldn't defend themselves out of a paper bag. Just like in war, the best defense, especially in these types of cases, is a vicious and aggressive offense. A defendant will have to attack the state's very right to accuse them of anything, considering the states own checkered, bloody, and corrupt past. Every individual has the right to be left alone, and not to participate, and a defendant will have to plant his heals firmly in the ground and fight like a mad tiger against they type of slander games your trained prosecution will engage in. Defense lawyers won't engage in anything even close to this, because they are officers of the court; defendants come and go, but their relationships with the court, the judges, and so on, is if not forever, far more permanent.

Contrary to popular belief, appearing meek in court will not appease the court to go lenient upon you, no more than a cow appearing meek at a slaughterhouse will somehow avoid slaughter. Courts process defendants like a slaughterhouse. The sad truth in todays day and age, is a defendant, no matter what he or she may be accuse of, needs to aggressively, passionately, and viciously defend their right to be left alone. Bring an army of supporters. Be ready to riot if necessary. Do not under estimate the danger and peril you are in, when someone denounces you for any crime. Your life may hinge on nothing more than the words and ideas you can muster up that say "no", you have no right and will not do this to me; you will not vilify me, so you can reduce me to subhuman in the name of your distorted sense of justice, and then punish me based upon some show trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Presumption of Innocence as a tautology

"The phrase means simply that a person is not legally guilty until a jury returns a verdict of guilty—which is little more than a tautology." (under the meaning section between the three point explanation and quote from Woolmington)

Is this really the case? It was my understanding that the term referred to a person being presumed to be factually innocent until proven guilty in law, whereas someone actually IS legally innocent until proven legally guilty. I realise that it is not explained as being an actually tautology, but it seems misleading to use the term. 82.23.192.190 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Age dependance of right

In the U.S. minors are not covered by the same rights as adults. In some (all?) jurisdictions the juvenile court system places the burden of proof on those accused. This is one reason the more serious cases get bumped up and the defendants are tried as adults. It would be interesting to include a section on the rights of minors, if there is any sort of national standard at least. A by-county list would be asinine. ExtremeSquared (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Different Meanings

There seem to be two (and possibly three) distinct meanings of "innocent until proven guilty". These often get confused, leading to considerable cross-purpose argument:

(1) Before returning a verdict of guilty, a court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The court may not conclude guilt on the grounds that the defendant "might be" or "is probably" guilty, or is unable to prove otherwise.

(2) Until such time as he is declared guilty by a court of law (the evidence against him having met the criterion for (1) above) a criminal suspect retains the formal status and privileges accorded to an innocent person. Thus he may be granted bail, continue his business activities, vote in elections etc. If it is deemed necessary to imprison him he is given special status as a "remand prisoner" and (wherever practical) granted privileges appropriate to his innocent status. If finally acquitted (whatever individuals may continue to believe about him) he keeps his legal status as an innocent man and cannot officially be classified as "a criminal".

(3) Until such time as he is declared guilty by a court of law, a suspected criminal remains factually innocent and it is illegal to suggest (or even think) otherwise.

Meaning (1) is quite reasonable, as any number of people may be unable to prove an alibi for the time a crime was committed, whereas only one of them may actually be guilty. This is almost universally accepted, though the exact meaning of "reasonable doubt" is open to considerable debate. Meaning (2) is disputed, usually by people who find it disruptive to their own agendas. For example, defense attorneys thrive upon (1) but are often wary of (2), fearing that the labeling of acquitted people as "innocent" may plant a suggestion in the minds of potential jurors that innocence has been - and must therefore in future be - proven. Meaning (3) is ludicrously untrue, as the ontological fact of a person's guilt or innocence is in no way dependent on any legal assumptions, and people's personal opinions are their own business. However (3) is nevertheless used as a kind of strawman substitute for (2) by those who wish to see the definition confined to (1). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.199.124 (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mental handicap

"It is argued a person who is found not guilty still cannot always claim to be innocent, e.g. if he/she has used lethal force in case of valid self-defence exerted against a mentally handicapped attacker with very low IQ."

Why on earth wouldn't the person be "innocent" in such a case of "valid self-defence"? Jon.baldwin (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

William Garrow

I added a reference to Garrow as coiner of the phrase inncoent until proven guilty. It is becoming clear from the sources cited on his page that this hitherto almost forgotten lawyer deserves some credit for developing many of the concepts and practices described in this article.Straw Cat (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Greatest Lie

Another euphamism for this, especially in the USA, is "the greatest lie ever taught in school." It is really doublespeak to believe that this is really observed or taken seriously, such as the page presents, when the reality is the total opposite. People are almost ALWAYS considered guilty nowdays by mere accusation and have to prove their innocence to be exonerated.

The page should discuss this more that it does.

There isn't anything like a "presumption of innocence" in common law! Not in the UK and sure not in the USA where they execute even clearly innocent people. The principle there is 'better to kill an innocent person than to let a guilty one go'!