The Presumption of Innocence...

[Raven]

I admit, it's very difficult to presume the innocence of Sandusky given his own statements and all the evidence that seems to be piling up, but it's worth reminding ourselves that he enjoys that presumption as we all do. Some of the news commentators lately seem to be ready to string the guy up.

[EOTE]

1. We don't need to provide Sandusky with the presumption of innocence, the legal system does.

I have zero doubt that he's guilty, but I still support him receiving a fair trial. So long as he gets that trial, I'll be happy.

[Raven]

3. You're right but the legal system functions through people, like

jurors.

[jberryhill]

5. So?

A legal "presumption" is not some kind of mental state.

A presumption merely sets the state of play at the outset of a trial, and establishes who has the burden of proof.

There are all sorts of presumptions in law. For example, in a patent infringement trial, an issued patent is presumed valid. All that means is that the patent owner does not need to prove the validity of the patent. The defendant can attack validity, but must do so by clear and convincing evidence.

The presumption of innocence in criminal trials is not some kind of moral prescription about how any member of the general public is required to think.

If I walk into your house and shoot you, you do not have to sit there and think, "Gosh, I suppose he is innocent until proven guilty."

That's just utter nonsense. Into a criminal courtroom will walk a prosecutor, and a bunch of witnesses, NONE of whom think the defendant is innocent. The prosecutor is not there to solve some kind of mystery. He or she is there to prove the defendant is guilty, and the prosecutor believes there is a high likelihood that the defendant will be found guilty. Otherwise, we wouldn't have trials at all.

[KansDem]

2. Ironic, since it was the news commentators who built the guy up.

Perhaps we should stop worshiping fellow mortals...

[alc]

4. courts have to presume innocence. we don't.

As a citizen I am completely free to presume he's guilty. And I can consider O.J. did it even if the court did not find guilty. But the government can't punish either of them (yet) because it must presume innocence.

News needs to be careful so they don't influence a potential jury or otherwise make a fair trial difficult. But even they don't need to presume innocence the way the government does. If news goes too far in one trial, judges may start silencing them on other trials, so that's their main concern.