2 The presumption of innocence in practice

Few systems have had, de jure, presumption of guilt. Accusations of presumption of guilt generally do not denote an actual legal presumption of guilt, but rather some failures in ensuring that suspects are treated well and are offered good defense conditions. Typical infringements follow:

• In some systems, suspects may be held on long periods on pre-trial confinement , while inquiries proceed. Such long imprisonment constitutes, in practice, a hardship and a punishment for the suspect, even though he or she has not yet been sentenced.
• Courts may have a racist bias, in which a suspect of certain "inferior" ethnic groups is by default considered to be probably guilty. Conversely, a person of a "superior" group suspected of having committed a crime on a person of an "inferior" group may be supposed, by default, to have acted in self-defense.
• Courts may prefer the testimonies of persons of certain ethnic groups, gender, or professions over those of others, regardless of actual circumstances. For instances, courts may by default believe the version of police officers.

Guaranteeing the presumption of innocence extends beyond the judicial system. For instance, in many countries journalistic codes of ethics state that journalists should refrain from referring to suspects as though their guilt was certain. Also, while journalists may refer to suspects as "suspects" or "defendants", publishing of the prosecution's case without proper defense argumentation may in practice constitute presumption of guilt. Publishing a roster of arrested suspects may constitue undeserved punishment for them, since it in practices ruins the reputation of those people without an actual conviction.

Modern practices aimed at curing social ills may run against presumption of innocence. Some civil rights activists feel that pre-employment drug testing , while legal, violates this principle, as potential employees are presumed to be users of illegal drugs, and must prove themselves innocent via the test. Similarly, critics argue that some dispositions of laws against sexual harassment or racial discrimination show a presumption of guilt. These dispositions were meant to ease the burden of proof on the victim, since in practice harassment or discrimination practices are hard to prove.

A commonly held myth is that in civil law or inquisitorial justice systems, the accused does not enjoy a presumption of innocence. This is simply false. This myth results from the fact that in civil law nations, an investigating magistrate supervises police investigations. To common law countries with adversarial systems, the civil law criminal justice system appears to be hopelessly biased, since the judge should remain as impartial as possible. However the magistrate does not determine innocence or guilt and functions much as a grand jury does in common law nations.

3 External links

• The History of Presumed Innocence
• Guilty Men, by Alexander Volokh
• Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432; 15 S. Ct. 394

Rights of the accused

<Hide>