The Meaning of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"
Exploring the Concept of Presumed Innocence
Events of recent weeks have prompted discussions in the media regarding the presumption of innocence and how that idea applies to persons found acquitted, or not guilty, at trial. These discussions have revealed that many Americans believe that a defendant found not guilty in court is truly “innocent” and therefore could not have committed the crime in question. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Origins in American Law
It is a common misconception that the presumption of innocence is embodied in The Constitution of the United States. In fact, “innocent until proven guilty” appears nowhere in that document, although several of the Amendments, taken together, do guarantee due process. The concept of presuming innocence goes much farther back, embodied in centuries of English case law. It did not make its first appearance in American law until the case of Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1895.
The Coffin case dealt with a lower court judge who had refused to instruct a specific set of jury instructions regarding presumed innocence. The Court found that it was insufficient to simply explain proof beyond a reasonable doubt; juries must be told on whom the burden of proof falls. According to the Court, this principle is vital because, in the words of famous jurist William Blackstone, “the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
The Practical Implications of Presuming Innocence
As highlighted by the Court in Coffin, simply telling a jury to assume that a defendant is innocent is not enough to keep our criminal courts working properly. It is equally important that jurors understand that the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt lies with the prosecutor; the presumption of innocence cannot be overcome unless the state produces sufficient evidence of guilt. The Court further defines reasonable doubt as being without any “honest, substantial misgiving” as to the defendant’s guilt.
No one in the legal system expects jurors to assume innocence in truth under this standard. It is obviously difficult not to wonder if a defendant has not done something to land him or her in court in the first place. What this standard does demand is that jurors be absolutely sure that any and all suspicions are backed up by sufficient, sound, convincing legal evidence. If that standard is not met, the defendant must be acquitted, regardless of jurors’ personal opinions about the defendant’s character or actions.
Why Acquittal Does Not Equal Innocence
The obvious problem with this system is that, as Blackstone admitted, guilty people will often go free as a result. Our culture is filled with countless examples of people that seemed obviously guilty being acquitted due to insufficient proof (anyone remember O. J. Simpson?). But this is only one problem with equating a verdict of “not guilty” with a determination of “innocence”, and there are good reasons that there is no such finding as “innocent” in our judicial system.
Often these problems come in the form of “affirmative defenses”. These are defenses to a crime that admit the behavior alleged by the state, but argue other reasons for acquittal. The most famous of these is to plead “not guilty by reason of insanity”. Obviously, a defendant making such a plea agrees to the allegations to some extent, while also arguing that legal guilt does not really exist. There is also the difficult-to-argue idea of jury nullification, which asks the jury to excuse the defendant’s behavior even if a crime has been proven.
Application of the Presumption of Innocence
Ultimately, the most important part of the concept of presumption of innocence is that it applies to the legal system — judges, juries, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. Nowhere is it codified in American law that an average citizen on the street must assume either that a defendant is innocent, or that a defendant who has been freed did not commit the crime in question.
Nor do our laws state that it is wrong to state a belief that someone is guilty. It would work against the First Amendment to demand that all citizens agree with all jury verdicts. The question of slander is often raised, but the law of slander generally does not apply to allegations made in the public record in court. At any rate, slander is a different often-misunderstood issue, and worthy of its own, separate discussion.
Balance
|
What do you think about this article?
More in Politics & Society
Latest Articles