Overview
Criminal law and procedure as a fundamental predicate in principle requires that "every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." There are several legal principles that arise out of this fundamental predicate of criminal law, such as:
– a fair and impartial trial;
– a speedy trial;
– maintenance of human dignity;
– in the absence of risk of flight or harm to society that there be no pre-trial incarceration;
– no depravation of property without due process;
– a person cannot be compelled to confess guilt or give evidence against themselves, noting that silence should not be used as evidence of guilt.
Origin
The principle of 'presumption of innocence' finds its roots in Ancient Roman law and in one or another way was mentioned in 1215 Magna Carta, 1529 Lithuanian Statute and 1789 the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizens. Since XVIII century it became a constitutional principle and inviolable right of anyone accused of a crime, other nations in their respective juris prudence followed suit. In 1791, Sir William Garrow, a barrister at trial at the Old Bailey gave birth to the phrase “presumed innocent until proven guilty”, arguing that the accusers be “robustly” tested in court. The principle of 'presumption of innocence' was further enshrined as protecting the rights of the individual in the 1895 decision of Coffin v. United States. Although there is no direct language in the US Constitution on the principle of 'presumption of innocence' the courts held the applicability of three (3) Constitutional amendments that support the presumption of innocence including the fourth, fifth, sixth, eight, and fourteenth amendments that include language to the extent of protecting the accused. Fundamentally the principle of 'Presumption of Innocence' is universal transcending without limitation both to Common Law and Napoleonic Law systems, respectively. Universality of this principle is further enshrined in UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.
Importance
Consider, in the absence of the 'presumption of innocence', principle, the state would not have to prove guilt, and the accused would be denied their right to due process. In noting this imbalance, a defendant’s presumption of innocence places the burden of proof on the state, wholly and entirely. Since crimes committed are considered to be against society it becomes the duty of the state to provide justice – specifically to those affected. The state’s burden is legal, as well as, the necessity to maintain societal faith in the state’s capability and capacity with respect to social discipline, prosecution and fairness. Due to the serious consequences of conviction, the state must prove guilt at a high standard (beyond a reasonable doubt). If doubt remains, the defendant must be given the benefit of the doubt and cleared because the state’s ‘burden of proof’ has not been met. It is therefore foundational in principle in which criminal justice is based, that allowing the guilty to go free is better than convicting the innocent. This serves as a preventative measure to keep the innocent out of jail. People awaiting trial have not been convicted of any offence and may ultimately be cleared. No system is perfect, but the grave danger of arbitrary and capricious actions without regard to inalienable individual inherent rights, is a greater and an imminent threat to rule of law and democracy. In the application of ‘presumption of innocence’ is also the preservation of humanity.
Resources
https://www.fairtrials.org/presumption-innocence
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Presumption+of+Innocence
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/presumption-of-innocence-laws.html