Principles of Presumption of innocence: what it means and why it matters


  Written by HT AL-AMIN KHAN, Student, Department of Land Management and Law, Jagannath University, Dhaka.

Introduction

The presumption of innocence is one of the most important principles of criminal justice. It means that anyone who is accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. This principle protects the rights and dignity of the accused and ensures that they are treated fairly by the legal system.

Origin

The presumption of innocence has a long history in different legal traditions. It can be traced back to ancient Roman law, where it was expressed as "ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" (the burden of proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies). It was also recognized in Jewish law, where it was said that "every man is innocent until proved guilty". In modern times, the presumption of innocence has been adopted by many countries that use common law or civil law systems.

Implications

The presumption of innocence has several implications for how criminal trials are conducted. We show this principle's implication among the three parties such as 1. Prosecution 2. Accused 3. Society

First,

It places the burden of proof on the prosecution (the party that brings the charges against the accused), not on the defense (the party that represents the accused). The prosecution must present compelling evidence to convince the judge or jury that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that there must be no plausible alternative explanation for what happened other than the guilt of the accused. If there is any doubt in the minds of the judge or jury, they must acquit (find not guilty) the accused.

Second,

It gives certain rights and protections to the accused during their trial.

For example, They have - 

1. The right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves;

2. The right to be informed of their charges and have access to legal counsel;

3. The right to a fair and public trial by an impartial judge or jury;

4. The right to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence in their favour;

5. The right to appeal their conviction if they believe there was an error in law or fact.

Third,

It affects how society views and treats people who are accused of crimes. The presumption of innocence means that people -

1. Should not be judged or punished before their guilt is established by a court. 

2. Should not be subjected to public humiliation, discrimination or violence because of their alleged involvement in a crime. 

3. Should not be denied their basic human rights and freedoms because they are facing criminal charges.

Conclusion

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle that protects human dignity and liberty against arbitrary accusations and convictions. It ensures that justice is done based on facts and evidence rather than prejudice or bias. It also promotes public confidence in the integrity and fairness of the criminal justice system. The presumption of innocence is essential for ensuring justice and fairness in criminal cases. It protects people from being wrongly convicted and suffering unjust consequences. It also safeguards public confidence in the rule of law and respect for human dignity. It is a cornerstone of democracy and human rights that we should all uphold and defend.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras (1952) : A Landmark case on Sales Tax Law

Image
      Written by  HT AL-AMIN KHAN , Student, Department of Land Management and Law, Jagannath University, Dhaka. Case name: Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras (1952) Citation:  AIR 1952 Mad 91. Introduction This is a landmark case on sales tax law that was decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1953. The case is Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras, which involved a dispute between a merchant firm and the provincial government over the liability to pay sales tax on goods sold outside the province. Facts Poppatlal Shah was a partner of a firm called Indo-Malayan Trading Company, which had its head office in Madras (now Chennai). The firm dealt with groundnut oil, sago and kirana articles, and received orders from merchants in Calcutta (now Kolkata) for supply of these goods. The firm purchased these goods from local markets in Madras and dispatched them to Calcutta by rail or steamer. The railway receipts or bills of lading were taken in the name of the sellers and so were the insur
Read more

ARREST : THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1898

Image
Written by  HT AL-AMIN KHAN , Student, Department of Land Management and Law, Jagannath University, Dhaka. Arrest Generally Arrest how made Section 46 of The law specifies the procedure for making an arrest and the limitations on using force during the process. According to this section: 1.      Arrest Procedure : When making an arrest, the police officer or person arresting must physically touch or confine the person, except if the person agrees to be arrested by their words or actions. 2.      Use of Force: If the person being arrested resists with force or tries to escape, the arresting officer can use any necessary means to make the arrest. 3.     Restriction on Lethal Force: This section does not allow causing the death of a person accused of a non-capital offense. Lethal force is only permitted for those accused of offenses punishable by death or transportation for life. Search Procedure during Arrest: Sections 47, 48, 51, and 52 Searching for Arrested Person S
Read more

Marbury vs. Madison 1803 : A Landmark Case Study

Image
  Written by  HT AL-AMIN KHAN , Student, Department of Land Management and Law, Jagannath University, Dhaka. Introduction Marbury v. Madison was a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided in 1803.  Fact The case arose from a political dispute between President John Adams and President-elect Thomas Jefferson, who had defeated Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Adams had appointed a number of "midnight judges" to the federal judiciary in the final days of his presidency, including William Marbury. However, Jefferson and his supporters in Congress believed that these appointments were made purely for political purposes and sought to block them. When Jefferson took office, he directed his Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold Marbury's commission as a justice of the peace. Marbury then brought a lawsuit against Madison in the Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus (a court order directing Madison to deliver his commission) under the Judiciary Act of
Read more