Is guilty until proven innocent really a bad thing?

Post Reply New Topic

Even though the recent events with the Supreme Court nomination got me thinking about this, my post here is about an overall question rather than anything specifically related to that current political process.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the foundation of current U.S. law.

Innocent until proven guilty, in my opinion, stems from the belief that people are inherently good. Therefore, people should be automatically considered innocent unless proven otherwise.

There is an opposing viewpoint to the above: What about a belief that people are inherently bad? Therefore, people should automatically be considered guilty until proven innocent? Or if not inherently bad, at the least, people have temptations and proclivities toward doing things that are considered wrong even if they're inherently "good".

About ten years ago I was called for jury duty. The jury selection was for a drug case. The defendant was in the courtroom along with his lawyer. The judge explained the details (he was arrested in a meth house with meth out in the open and meth on his person which he claimed was someone else's). I was angrily dismissed by the judge from the case because I considered the defendant guilty based on the facts as presented to the jury candidates and I said my bias too strong to be convinced otherwise. The defendant apparently got off on a technicality in that case only to be arrested within a month on..........another drug charge.

The emphasis on a defendant's alibi, if there is one, seems to be more of an innocent disproving his/her assumed guilt.

Under our current system, innocent people are wrongly accused and wrongly found guilty.

Under a system of presumed guilt, if accused rather than presumed innocent, we can assume there would be a number of innocent people wrongly accused and wrongly found guilty. I believe most people don't go around falsely accusing people of things (because that's beyond egregious) therefore I would have to believe the number of innocent people presumed guilty by false accusation would be low.

My questions: How different would things really be if our legal system was based on guilty until proven innocent? Would that be a bad thing compared to the way things have operated since the founding of this country? If so, why?

Well even though we are not suppose to do that we pretty much do it anyways.

Take any man who is accused of being a pedophile for example. Just the fact that he gets accused can ruin his life and even when he's proven innocent in court you still have people who wonder if he really is and will treat him badly because of that accusation.

So yeah, I think it's a bad and very unfair thing but it happens all the time doesn't it?

I think you're saying "in the court of public opinion", even if someone is proven innocent at least some people will think the person is guilty no matter what simply because someone accused the person.

My question relates to the legal system in the U.S. though. What would be wrong or bad about the standard being guilty until proven innocent in a court of law.

Actually, the presumption of innocence principle goes more like "A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of criminal law". That last part is crucial. Civil cases are based more on the idea that the defendant is somehow guilty as charged, and that only a settlement needs to be determined. The "Court of Public Opinion" and "Trial By Media" have no such principle in place -- mere suspicion of a crime is enough to declare a person guilty of that crime.

"Guilty Until Proven Innocent" dominates faith-based courts. Look up the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and Sharia Law for examples of how this principle is abused. People are executed based on nothing more than vicious rumors in many "third-world" countries.

Sure, mistakes are made in our current justice system -- innocent people are wrongly arrested, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced every day. But these cases are in the minority, and not everyone in prison is innocent of their crimes.

Of course, if you ask inmates if they're guilty, most will be likely to either try to justify their crimes, or claim that they are innocent (i.e., "I was framed", "The cop was out to get me", "The jury was rigged", "The evidence was planted", "The judge is a bigot", "The prosecutor had an agenda", "The defense lawyer was on the take", et cetera).

That's a good point, Fnord about civil vs. criminal courts. I didn't think of that.

Also good point that public opinion and "trial by media" operate by the identical philosophy as faith-based courts such as the Inquisition, Witch Trials and Sharia Law. Basically counter to the criminal justice system.

Until someone is proven guilty of something everybody is supposed to use the disclaimer "alleged" or "allegedly".

That's the custom, but not the law.

Although using the term "Alleged" crime and "Alleged" perpetrator will usually exempt someone from a defamation lawsuit if the alleged perpetrator is exonerated of all charges.

I feel like a person should be assumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

This is the whole basis of the laws of many nations (at least in theory).

There seems to be a pattern pertaining to Kavanaugh getting drunk, abusing women, feeling entitled, etc. when he was young. He has not expressed any contrition at all, or sympathy for victims. There seems to be a few people who are alleging similar things. There seems to be at least some corroboration.

I wonder what the FBI investigation will yield.

Fnord, what you've said about public opinion and trial by media operating under the premise of guilty until proven innocent, exactly the opposite of our criminal justice system, can't be overstated.

I think you nailed it for me. The problem as I see it after you've clarified is that public opinion and the media falsely misrepresent as also operating under the innocent until proven guilty premise when in fact, they do not. That's the problem.

Society would be much more straightforward in this regard if common knowledge was:

"The criminal justice system is the only system in which innocence is presumed. In public opinion, civil court and the media, all other walks of life, people are presumed guilty if accused. That's just the way it is and nothing should be done to change that."

Being guilty until proven innocent can really do damage on the individual if the claim was untrue. Take pedophile for example or child abuse. People hear this and then blindly believe it and then when the truth gets out there, people don't change their minds. The person will always be guilty. Or you get accused of stealing at work so you are suspended until proven innocent but this can still do damage emotionally because now you will be too afraid to work now or be too nervous around people because you are always worried you will get accused of taking things you didn't take. It can really destroy you and then you become unsociable and start having troubles making friends and having socialization issues because of the trauma. I am sure people have been sued for slander because of damage like this. Someone spreads a false rumor and it causes emotional damage or reputation damage so bam you are being sued for slander because of the damage you caused based on an opinion you expressed and others believed it and took it as fact.


I was once accused of shoplifting so I got arrested. I was taken into the police station and I was so humiliated I wouldn't leave the house for the weekend and I missed the homecoming parade because of it and on Monday I didn't want to go to school. But mom made me anyway and luckily kids did believe me when I told them what happened. What if they didn't, what if they had just assumed I was a thief so they all quit trusting me and started treating me like I was going to steal their things. Yes my parents could have sued the county or the state or whoever for this damage and the fact I would have had more anxiety and more money being spent on my therapy for this. But since it didn't cause any damage, there was no lawsuit and I got lucky. But I sure did not go to that store for a very long time.

In Civil Law, at least in the US, you are not assumed guilty. But there is a lower standard of "proof" required. The "proof" is obtained via "a preponderance of the evidence."

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is not required, like it is in criminal cases.

O.J. Simpson was found civilly liable for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson because there was a "preponderance of the evidence" that he did it. He was found innocent criminally because they could not prove, "beyond a reasonable doubt," that he committed the murder.

Your premise is invalid. The principle of the presumption of innocence doesn't stem from a belief in the essential goodness of man - closer to the contrary, in fact.

The root of the presumption of innocence is in the idea that, while neither is desirable, it is less desirable for an innocent man to be punished than for a guilty man to go unpunished; the one is to enact a positive evil, the other is to simply avoid doing a good.

The Western intellectual tradition from which the principle you're referring to emerged, in contrast to the Chinese, Confucian tradition which views man as inherently good, has always viewed him as inherently evil. This goes back to Augustine, who established the principle of Original Sin in Church dogmatics, defeating the rival Pelagian school, later considered a heresy, which taught than man was essentially good and was free from Origin Sin. One could take this back further to the body/spirit dualism of Plato which preached that all earthly (humanly), things were tainted and doomed to evil. Augustine's was a continuation of the Platonic tradition, in contrast to Aquinas who was closer to Aristotle.

As a saying "every inmate is innocent."

Thank you, this makes a lot of sense to me. The Western intellectual tradition viewing man as inherently evil explains why public opinion and "trial by media" as Fnord describes it believe man is guilty until proven innocent.

That's just the nature of the sensationalist media.....it's been that way since Time Immemorial. "Guilty till proven innocent" is a salient characteristic of this media.

Yes it’s a horrible thing.quite some of people say aspies are violent future mass killers who have no empathy or emotions, should the law treat us as such then? It would under guilty until proven innocent. How do you improve a negative? How can you prove something didn’t happen when all the evidence needed is someone saying it happen?
This is why the social security ban was stopped as it didn’t give due process and presumed all disabled people to be guilty and sought to punish them by removing their rights.

Some woman could accuse me of domestic violence and I’d be punished and branded under my states guilty until proven innocent laws and I don’t have the money to fight it. Even if I did I’m done , no job, no future jobs, I’d probably end up killing Myself, so sorry I fully support innocent until proven otherwise in both legal and society matters.
How’d feel if this judge killed himself and then later it came out it was a mistake or all false? Such things have happen to men. Death is permanent, the emotional damage is permanent. People falsely accused can ever work again, as no one will hire a supposed rapist.

My state and California keep expanding domestic abuse laws and it’s terrifying. Makes me afraid. All it takes is some woman saying you slept with her at some point and your dangerous, no prof needed.

Oh how about this, someone can accuse you of being mentally unfit and dangerous and you lose your rights, now say you go to a doctor and get examined andnthey say your mentally fit and not dangerous, well guess what the court can’t consider mental evaluations or other medical evidence in deciding your fate. So someone’s saying your dangerous trumps provisionals evaluations. Its you're just guilty, accept it.