a question regarding the term innocent until proven guilty.?

Question

this is a law, is that correct? when was this law founded? before the law was founded what was the previous law?

Answer 1

It is NOT a law. It is presumed to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments from the Constitution and from Case Law in Coffin v United States.

It stems from the foundation of our justice system that the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, implicitly, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

In other countries, a defendant is presumed guilty and must prove innocence.

Answer 2

Christine, the phrase you refer to "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal presumption that implies anyone considered to have committed a crime is to be treated as if he did not commit the crime until some proof is established that in fact "proved" the person was guilty as charged. This presumption has been in place for many years. Our law, largely being based on English common law, of course became the law of this land once our independence from England was secured. Prior to that time all law in this land was the same as in England. Kings had the final say on who was guilty and who was not. The kings designated certain individuals to try cases across England by applying the "royal edicts" that had been put in place by the kings. When the Magna Carta (I believe the 13th century) was signed by the English king, the law became somewhat codified in that the same requirements for all cases was the rule. Even then some evidence of a crime had to established before there could be any punishment. However, the "evidence" needed then was only the word of a "gentleman" as to what had transpired.
Our law has evolved to now have different levels of proof depending on the nature of the offense or the case/crime. This phrase is applied specifically to criminal matters which require the highest standard of proof and that is that everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty by evidence that is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Answer 3

Under the laws of England and the United States, there is no such thing as being found "innocent". You are only found either "guilty" or "not guilty". This is a protection for your freedom. The obligation rests on the prosecution to prove you guilty. You do not have and you do not need to prove that you are innocent.

This protection of individual freedom can be traced to the government's persecution of John Lilburne in England under Oliver Cromwell's dictatorial fundamentalist regime. The freedoms lost and abused by the religious tyranny in that era were well understood by the founders of the American Republic, and so they wrote remarkable protections into the American Bill of Rights and created a secular republic in which We the People, not religious assumptions, are the highest authority, and the laws protect the people, not the presumed laws of any God or a "Big Brother" government.

These protections generally work well to preserve the people from the abuses of big government. Sometimes they fail, such as in the acquittal of O. J. Simpson. But by and large we Americans enjoy freedoms from big government that for instance Canadians do not; they were able under Canadian law to try Henry Morgentaler over and over for the same offense, trying to get a conviction. Under American law, the prosecution gets just one shot at it.

Living under American law, you do not ever have to prove you are innocent of anything. The burden of proving you guilty of something rests entirely on the prosecution. If you refrain from injuring others, you as an American can walk around with your head held high, bow to no god and no man, and live your life as a free person.

Answer 4

The correct legal term is actually "innocent unless proved guilty" If we say "until" it means they can keep trying again and again Until they prove you guilty. It is a right granted under the constitution. Under English law (and I believe it is still the case) a person was guilty unless proven innocent.

It is a very important concept because it shifts the burden of proof to the State and they must show you are guilty as opposed to the other way around where you would need to show you are innocent

Answer 5

The concept come from English Common Law. However, this phrase does not represent reality.

You are not guilty until found guilty - that's the correct interpretation. So, you may be found not guilty, but that doesn't mean you didn't do it, it just means the state couldn't meet the burden of proof necessary to convict.

Answer 6

Let me tell you from first hand experience- You are guilty until proven innocent until the trial (you hope the prosecution cant rig the trial however). My husband is in the middle of a white collar case, its a circus. They do what they want, you cant do ANYTHING about it! I believe the judges do them "favors". And certainly NONE of the judges go against each other- everyone talks about that. So if they want to get you, you are pretty much screwed. I hear the DA's even have ties to the jails.

Answer 7

Its just a saying. Do you think police have to follow the rules? Before that saying was made up. They just beat you until you said you were guilty. Now a days it is just more psycological.

Answer 8

YOU GOT IT WRONG,YOU R GUILTY TIL PROVEN INNOCENT

Answer 9

Presumption of innocence is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. It states that no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to convince the court that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In principle, the defense does not have to 'prove' anything. However, the defense may present evidence tending to show that there is a doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

Conversely, in many authoritarian regimes the prosecution case is, in practice, believed by default unless the accused can prove he is innocent, a practice called presumption of guilt. Many people believe that presumption of guilt is unfair and even immoral because it allows the strategic targeting of any individual, since it's often difficult to firmly establish proof of innocence (for example, it's often impossible to establish an alibi if the person is home alone at the time of the crime).

In many countries belonging to the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, the Principle of Presumption of Innocence is phrased such that "the accused is presumed to be innocent until it has been declared guilty by a court". 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.

A fundamental right
This right is so important in modern democracies that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions:

In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says "Every man is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty." and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says "any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until his guilt has been established". The jurors' oath reiterates this assertion.
Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course.

The presumption of innocence in practice
Few systems have had, de jure, presumption of guilt. Accusations of presumption of guilt generally do not imply an actual legal presumption of guilt, but rather denounce 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 remand, 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 prefer the testimonies of persons of certain class, status, ethnicity, gender, or political standing over those of others, regardless of actual circumstances.
In Europe and the Americas, prior to the French Revolution, it was common that justice could have suspects tortured so as to extract a confession from them. Even though the suspects were not, at this point, legally guilty, they were exposed to considerable pain, often with lasting physical consequences.
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. For example, they use "suspect" or "defendant" when referring to the suspect, and use "allegedly" when referring to the criminal activity that the suspect is accused of.

More subtly, publishing of the prosecution's case without proper defense argumentation may in practice constitute presumption of guilt. Publishing a roster of arrested suspects may constitute undeserved punishment as well, since in practice it damages the reputation of innocent suspects. Private groups fighting certain abuses may also apply similar tactics, such as publishing the real name, address, and phone number of suspects, or even contacting the suspects' employer, friends and neighbors (as an example, Perverted-Justice.com does so in order to shame suspected child molesters).

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.

Civil rights activists note that the well-meaning practices so adopted may have a deleterious effect on justice being served. An example is the use of a screen in sexual assault cases, which is set up in some jurisdictions to prevent the complainant from being distressed at the sight of the accused. Where a victim was in fact victimized by the accused, this may be argued to serve the principles of therapeutic justice [1] [2]. However, where an accused is in fact innocent, this may send a message to the jury that the court has already accepted that in fact a crime was committed, which burden of proof has traditionally been on the prosecution, and which furthermore is a matter of fact that is not for the court to judge, but rather, for the jury. Not only this but also even more importantly, such a shield may also send a message that the complainant is upset by the sight of the accused, once again because guilt is seen to have been assumed by the court in so shielding the complainant. The psychological effects of such a screen have not yet been well researched, but the tension between the two views is a problem for therapeutic justice, which must weigh protection of genuine victims from genuine offenders against the potential for an unjust conviction that such protection may create.

Differences between legal systems
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details.

A common opinion held in countries based on common law is that in civil law or inquisitorial justice systems, the accused does not enjoy a presumption of innocence. This idea results from the fact that in most 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.

In the view of supporters of the inquisitorial system, the latter is less biased than the adversarial system, since the judges supervising cases are independent and bound by law to direct their enquiries both in favor or against the guilt of any suspect, compared to prosecutors in an adversarial system, who will, it is claimed, look only for evidence pointing to guilt and whose re-appointments may depend on the number of successful prosecutions that they have brought.

In general, civil law based justice systems, especially in Europe, avoid use of the term innocent, since it carries a moral charge separate from the phrase not guilty. 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. The wording is therefore delivered in a more formal and neutral manner, such that an accused is either declared guilty, not guilty for lack of a crime, not guilty due to lack of evidence, or not guilty due to lack of jurisdiction (in the case that a child or lunatic is accused). Such plain language is better suited for the predominantly written proceedings and less emotionally-charged nature of civil law trials...