What’s the presumption of innocence?

[ad_1]

The phrase “innocent until proven guilty” has become commonplace, but the concept is still alive and well. The presumption of innocence is a legal concept which means that a prosecutor is required to prove the allegations through clear and convincing evidence before a guilty verdict is returned by the judge of fact against a defendant. This is commonly called the burden of proof. A defendant’s rights to be presumed innocent until proven guilty give rise to a number of procedural laws that dictate what type of evidence can be used to prove alleged guilt. If the judge of fact has any doubts after the presentation of the admissible evidence, the defendant must be acquitted, i.e. declared not guilty.

Criminal trials may be heard by a judge and a jury or by a judge alone. In cases where a jury is the judge of fact, the judge makes decisions involving statutory and procedural legal matters. The admissibility of evidence, for example, is very important in maintaining the presumption of innocence. If a judge admits irrelevant or prejudicial evidence, a jury may not focus on the facts of the case instead of background, hearsay, or something completely irrelevant. Sentencing for carelessness is not fair game in most modern courtrooms.

In cases where a judge is the judge of fact, the judge determines the admissibility of evidence and hears testimony, examines exhibits, and examines material evidence. The judge has already seen the evidence offered, so some people feel that it might be difficult for the judge not to consider the evidence, despite its admissibility. For this reason, most criminal trials are presided over by a judge and decided by a jury. In some cases, however, there are circumstances that make it difficult for a jury to maintain the presumption of innocence. Cases involving known or widely disliked defendants, defendants who do not wish to testify on their own behalf, or those involving complex legal issues often end in a judicial process.

While the concept of the presumption of innocence may seem simple, it is not always an easy right to protect. Most modern democracies have recognized this right, but the practice is largely subjective. Some nations have an investigating magistrate, whose presence removes the neutral and empty idea of ​​what a judge should be. Whether the presumption of innocence can be maintained in these types of courts is hotly debated.

Many people complain that some institutions take over and punish individuals who have not yet been convicted or have actually been found not guilty by a court. Students from many universities are expelled if accused of a crime, whether or not they are found guilty. Companies fire or refuse to hire people who have been charged with certain crimes, despite the status or outcome. Courts that set high bail to detain defendants deemed to be a flight risk have been criticized on this principle. These practices appear to contradict the legal rights of the accused and the unconvicted, and in these cases the presumption of innocence becomes more a theory of the ideal than a practiced right.

Most modern democratic societies have rejected the presumption of guilt in favor of the presumption of innocence. The fact that someone has to prove his innocence has been classified as a contradiction to the principles of freedom and enlightenment. The use of the presumption of innocence is integral to a defendant and counsel reminding the judge and jury to focus on whether the prosecution has proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which is what it all boils down to in most democratic nations.

[ad_2]