| Summary |
There is an ongoing debate in the criminal justice system today questioning the age-old axiom of "innocent until proven guilty." In the United States, it is still the assumption that a person is innocent of any charges brought against them until proven guilty by a court of law. Unfortunately, many of our society's institutions have operated from the viewpoint that someone is guilty until proven innocent. This is especially true when it comes to the criminal justice system, where an accused must prove their innocence and is frequently assumed to be guilty.
When a person is charged with a crime, there are several steps involved in determining their guilt or innocence. First, a judge or magistrate presides over the case to determine if there is sufficient cause for a criminal trial to be held. If so, the accused is typically brought before a panel of jurors for trial. At this point, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
At this stage, the accused is still considered to be innocent until the evidence is presented. This evidence must be strong enough to convince the jury that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Only if satisfactory proof can be provided, can the jury come to a conclusion of guilt.
Sadly, many of our institutions and practices render the accused guilty until proven innocent. People are often subjected to harsher sentences than what is warranted because of the presumption of guilt. This can occur in cases against police officers, where the officer is often assumed to be guilty of misconduct automatically. This can result in the officer being fired or facing criminal charges before there is any proof that the crime has been committed. This can be especially detrimental if the officer is later proven innocent.
Another example of this "guilty until proven innocent" mentality is in the field of asset forfeiture cases. These cases involve the government seizing property that they believe is connected to criminal activity, even when there is no proof that a crime has been committed. This practice can be extremely detrimental to innocent people who have their property taken away without any legal justification.
The criminal justice system should not assume that someone is guilty until proven innocent. Instead, each case should be assessed on its own merits, and each accused person should be given the benefit of the doubt. It is only through rigorous adherence to this principle that we can ensure that the innocent are not harmed by our society's institutions.
The Theory of Innocence
The idea of a person being innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of the modern justice system. It is an idea that has been around for centuries, but has taken on greater importance in recent decades. This concept is rooted in the Western legal system, which is based on the presumption of innocence. In this system, individuals are not viewed as guilty until proven so in a court of law. This can be contrasted with other legal systems throughout the world, some of which allow for harsher punishments for those accused of crimes before they can be proven guilty or innocent.What Does "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" Mean?
The term, “innocent until proven guilty†means an accused person is presumed innocent until their guilt is established in a court of law. This theory seeks to protect the innocent until they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This right is an important protection for individuals, as it puts the burden of proof on proving an individual committed a crime on the government, rather than the person accused. This right is also aimed at giving individuals an opportunity to have their day in court and have an impartial jury decide their innocence or guilt.The Significance of the Principle of Innocence
The principle of innocence is an important part of the criminal justice system, and it is a safeguard for those accused of crimes. The principle seeks to ensure that defendants are afforded a fair trial and that the government does not abuse its power in punishing innocent individuals for crimes that they did not commit. It also ensures that individuals are given the presumption of innocence until a court of law can determine their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.The Right to Remain Silent
The right to remain silent is another principle associated with the presumption of innocence. This right allows individuals to remain silent and not incriminate themselves when they are questioned by law enforcement or asked to testify in court. This right is important in the criminal justice system because it allows individuals to protect themselves and maintain their right to due process when they are accused of a crime.The Right to an Attorney
In addition to the right to remain silent, individuals also have the right to have an attorney present during questioning, or trial. This right is important to ensure that individuals have proper legal representation and that they can protect their rights in trial. This right also allows individuals to challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution, as well as to present their own evidence to prove their innocence.<<
The 43-year-old's rape conviction was taken up this fall by the attorneys and law students at the New York-based Innocence Project, which handles only cases in which DNA evidence can be used to prove the innocence of a convicted person.
The Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University is a nonprofit, donor-funded legal clinic and criminal justice resource center that works to exonerate the wrongfully convicted through post-conviction DNA testing. "We take cases where DNA—biological evidence—is the determinant of innocence or guilt in a case," said Maddy deLone, executive director of the Innocence Project and a prisoners' rights attorney who has worked in the correctional facility system for nearly two decades. "Those cases are largely sexual assaults, rape cases, and sometimes murder cases."
The Innocence Project at the Cardozo School of Law was created by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld in 1992. Mr. Scheck was one of the high-profile attorneys on O.J. Simpson's so-called "dream team" of defense lawyers at his 1995 criminal trial.
"We receive thousands of requests every year for help, and there are also about 40 other 'projects' (like ours) around the country that take appeals for assistance for people: post-conviction innocence appeals," Ms. deLone said. For example, the Chicago-based Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law is another group that is dedicated to identifying and rectifying wrongful convictions and other miscarriages of justice.
"Projects that don't do DNA cases, in general, tend to spend a lot more time talking to a person about his innocence and trying to make a decision whether they really believe he is innocent," Ms. deLone said. "We don't spend an enormous amount of time trying to vet the veracity of someone's claims of innocence. We let the biology do that," explained Ms. deLone.
Under the supervision of co-directors Mr. Scheck and Mr. Neufeld, three full-time attorneys, 21 law students from the Cardozo School of Law, and law students from law schools around the country work on behalf of those they represent.
"When we find a case where a lab technician or forensic scientist testifies falsely either purposefully or through negligence, we call for audits of that person's work to ensure that there haven't been other criminal defendants similarly wrongly convicted," Ms. deLone said.
"In the DNA world alone, there have been 154 exonerations across the country of people who were serving, in general, lengthy sentences: 14 of those people on death row and others often 25 years and up for crimes they didn't commit." People just like Mr. Moon, who throughout his incarceration maintained his innocence, even when a serologist testified that Mr. Moon was among the 15 percent of the population who could have been the source of semen evidence presented at trial.
"There are no uniform laws of evidence preservation across this country, so every jurisdiction has its own rules. Right now, it can differ even between adjoining counties," Ms. deLone said.
Nina Morrison, an attorney with the Innocence Project, has said Mr. Moon would be released on $1 bond until his conviction is officially vacated by the state Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas. "In our most recent exoneration in Texas, we filed the statement of facts jointly with the district attorney in El Paso, who saw that the conviction was wrongful…and that his office participated in the conviction," Ms. deLone said.
Indeed, Ms. deLone noted that the Project often works with local courts to see justice served. "We do have many friends in law enforcement, because we try to undo wrongs, and most people are supportive of that. And in the course of exonerating these people, we often find the real criminals in some of these horrific cases."
Still, cases like Mr. Moon's represent a "horror of horrors" for a society striving to be just and may operate, in some cases, to undermine confidence in the justice system by others. "I think it's hard for people to believe that there are wrongfully convicted people. It certainly is a difficult thing for a prosecuting agency to come to grips with, although some of them have done that admirably…while others resist beyond reason," Ms. deLone said.
She observed, "It's easier to live in a world where you think everything works the way it's supposed to work. And I think these exoneration cases tell us it doesn't and also point to times where there are problems where we could improve the justice system."
The federal "Justice for All" Act of 2004 increases the maximum amount of damages that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims may award in cases of unjust imprisonment, from $5,000 to $50,000 per year in non-capital cases, and $100,000 per year in capital cases.
"I think you can never completely make up for depriving somebody of their liberty for what is often more than 10, sometimes more than 20, years, but some states and the federal government have compensation laws," Ms. deLone said.
According to the Innocence Project, "DNA testing…is not a panacea for the ails of the criminal justice system," so the Innocence Project is also active in the effort to pass new laws and implement new policies in order to reverse and prevent wrongful convictions.
"We say 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' so we have a reluctance, as a society, to put innocent people in prison…or so the story goes," Ms. deLone said. "But it's hard to imagine a judicial system which would absolutely be 'error free.'"
Nonetheless, with groups like the Innocence Project elucidating ways to improve the system, hopefully our error rate will go down and we will have fewer who are guilty until proven innocent.
