Talk:Presumption of innocence

and not a ward about magna carta

A significant part of presumption of innocence history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.76.50.6 (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Islam as source for presumption of innocence

How can this article claim that the Romans l earned of presumption of innocence from them when Islam wasn't invented until 300 years after the Roman Empire (which had existed for hundreds) collapsed? --99.243.60.7 (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

UK decryption of data

Article states, "If the suspect is unwilling (or even unable) to do so [decrypt data], it is an offence. Citizens can therefore be convicted and imprisoned without any evidence that the encrypted material was unlawful. Further, the onus is on the defendant to decrypt the data, and having lost the key or the password is not considered reasonable excuse."

This is not actually quite the situation, though this was the position put forward in the press at the time.

It is not an offence to be unable to decrypt data, but the onus is on the defendant to prove that he is unable to do so (but only to the civil standard of proof (i.e. on the balance of probabilities - not beyond reasonable doubt)).

Loosing the key or password is also a reasonable excuse, but the onus is once again on the defendant to prove the point (on the balance of probabilities).

From the article standpoint, these two situations are examples (of many) in UK law where the defendant is presumed guilty unless he can prove himself innocent.

The one controversial area that the press reported was that the defendant is required to provide the decryption key for any file or drive that the authorities deem to be an encrypted, even if it isn't in actuality. This latter point is not the case, the authorities have to prove the offence of refusal to decrypt beyond reasonable doubt - that means proving the file is encrypted (beyond reasonable doubt). This latter point may be easy for an obviously encrypted file, but may be more problematic for a file that appears to be something else (e.g. a binary image of processor code). 109.145.21.107 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and delete that line from the article because it's a) wrong and b) not in the citation given. As a "citation" for my deletion (can't really cite the absence of something in the article, but I'll drop it here for the record) I have this: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25745989. In this case the bloke got away with claiming he'd forgotten it until he thought it would be more convenient to disclose it as part of a separate case - and was then jailed under sect 49 of RIPA. The important thing being that he wasn't initially jailed when the police couldn't prove he hadn't forgotten it.

GoddersUK (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Literal latin translation vs. saying

I just removed 'homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus' which is not the historical or cited source for this article, while it is touted as being the direct english to latin translation it is not the foundation of the legal term or saying. The concept of innocent until proven guilty comes from this. I've reverted it because we are talking legal terms; "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" is the correct one. The literal translation of the Latin "homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus" was the translation of the saying's principal and not the saying itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The expression "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" is about the burden of proof not the presumption of innocence. It applies equally in civil cases where there is no guilt or innocence. It means literally, he who asserts must prove, which is not the same as presumption of innocence. The expression 'homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus' translates literally as a man is innocent until proved guilty, and is therefore the correct one. It's moreover the translation given in Wikipedia already at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(H). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.31.162 (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Islamic law

I've removed all the speculation about the impact of Islamic law on Western law, since as is noted above, the principle was well-established in the West centuries before the Quran was a twinkle in Mohammed's eye. That said, I'm not sure that the section belongs here at all. Though there seems to be a de facto presumption of innocence in Islamic law for major crimes, with the requiring of several eyewitnesses, nothing that was added indicates that it's actually a presumption of innocence, so much as a case of being very cautious where capital crimes are concerned.

If we're going to keep this in, I'd like to see some specific, cited evidence by reputable sources that say Islamic law has a general principal of presumption of innocence, akin to the Latin one. I'm not an expert on Islamic law, but going by the quotes that were added in support of a presumption of Islam—for example: "Only decide on the basis of proof, be kind to the weak so that they can express themselves freely and without fear, deal on an equal footing with litigants by trying to reconcile them."—it would seem that Islamic law supports a principle of evenhandedness between plaintiff and a defendant in civil cases, rather than actually placing the burden of proof on the prosecutor in criminal cases (excluding potentially capital crimes like adultery).

"Under Islamic law, a tradition had not solidified but doubtful evidence should be rejected upon moral principle". This claim is total BS and should be removed. It's a fundamental principle in Islamic law that 'the onus of proof is on the claimant while the oath is on the defendant', rather than a rejection 'upon moral grounds'. Those who, by their own admission, are 'not experts on Islamic law' should not push their own ignorant opinions.

I've left a small part in, uncited (since I don't think it really belongs and am not going to do much work to keep it here), but I would suggest that we remove even that unless someone can provide clear evidence that at least some schools of Islam explicitly place the burden of proof on the prosecutor in all criminal cases. —Quintucket (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently someone, has despite your efforts at upholding the integrity of the article, someone has reintroduced questionable claims into this article using an indirect reference to "theories". The following statements are seemingly contradictory:

• There have been theories that the modern principle of Presumption of Innocence was not actually brought about by Roman Law, rather it was by the influence of Islam.
• After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe fell back on a Germanic system that presumed guilt.

For Europe to return to a presumption of guilt, it requires a previous presumption of innocence. While there may have been "theories" regarding Islam's influence on modern juris prudence, they can hardly be taken seriously given the tremendous number of references to prior existence of systems supporting a presumption of innocence. (Were not so ill, I'd have listed many more sources, but I assume Wikipedia editors can Google for '"Presumption of innocence" rome')

See: Many many references here, another here, and another here.

Google returns tremendous numbers of potential sources attributing this principal to ancient Rome. Google lists other sources which attribute it to ancient Greece or the ancient Hebrews (although these claims seem to be less substantiated).

For claims of this sort to be credibly made, sources should not be affiliated with the group in question. Meaning, claims from Italy about how great the Romans were can be of questionable bias. Kevin Trumbull (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Presumably the line " 'Suspicion' is also something that is highly condemned, also from some hadith documented by Imam Nawawi[4] " should read "also from the same", not "some". I suggest someone who knows about hadiths checks this and either corrects it or deletes it ("some hadith..." not exactly being a very precise reference...). GoddersUK (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This is false, you can't say " the principle was well-established in the West centuries before the Quran was a twinkle in Mohammed's eye" when your words are clearly wrong, here even in comparative legal theories and studies Western Laws and Roman Laws are different. I think it is understandably that Islamic Law had it before Western Law, not Roman Law. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Weasel's playground

The section "The presumption of innocence in modern practice" is such an appalling mess of weaseldom I am sorely tempted to scythe through the entire section. Is anyone interested in helping me try to clean it up? Manning (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

um, I'm not sure that they are being used as weasel words- the usage of "some jurisdictions" is meant to indicate that it is not universal- especially since listing the jurisdictions would not actually improve the article.--User:Sstabeler|'''Sstabeler''']]|[[User_talk:"Sstabeler"|talk (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Links to the antithesis

I think this article would be improved by providing links to examples of modern and historical law which do NOT follow the presumption of innocence. A presumption of equality and a presumption of guilt being the two that strike me as most important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJamesLoy (talk • contribs) 21:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't know how I'd find this. The first time I found this article I was redirected by "presumption of guilt" which is de facto policy in so many places (many dictatorships, as Japan and Singapore, possibly Confucian countries in general) that I was sure it must be enshrined as an actual policysomewhere, but I don't know where. The now-removed section on Islamic law that I commented on above seemed to indicate a presumption of equality as you call it it (don't know if that's the actual term; I'd call it something like "presumption of equal-weight" or "non-presumption of guilt or innocence"), but it was clearly added by one of those people who try to "prove" that everything good comes from Islam, so I don't know if the actual claims the user was making are true. — Quintucket (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

France and Presumption of Innocence

The tracing of "innocent until proven guilty" to Roman law is credible and scholarly.

Then, halfway through the article, the concept is attributed instead to a 17th century Frenchman. It can't be both.

Plus, the paragraph on this Frenchman's contribution is pretty unintelligible, and its source citation is incomplete.

"The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal instrument created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.[18] It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial.[19] It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.[18] To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials..."

problematic phrases: "created by" the French cardinal legal inference that "most people are not criminals" evidence "that automatically attaches at trial" ref 19 incomplete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.213.31 (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Invention by Lemoine

I just changed a sentence that said the presumption was invented by Lemoine, as it clearly says earlier in the article that it goes back to Justinian, centuries before that cardinal's birth. Lemoine may well have set out a version of the presumption of innocence, and no doubt the French are very proud of that, but he did not invent the presumption as a concept. Nor is there sny evidence that the common law presumption goes back to him. 81.102.254.105 (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Justinian

The article on the related concept In dubio pro reo traces it back to an alternative passage in Justinian's Digest: "Favorabiliores rei potius quam actores habentur ("The condition of the defendant is to be favored rather than that of the plaintiff"). Does anyone know a reputable source that clarifies which of the two passages concerns the presumption of innocence? -- Framhein (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

pov and this article (Roman/Middle Ages)

Like most people trying to prove a point with a pov, the article (and not just Wikipedia) "proves" that everybody has always presumed innocent until proved guilty. The legal system of yesteryear was quite flawed by modern standards. There were no "checks and balances." In Rome, you sued (in modern terms) someone for murder. If you won, he suffered. If you lost, their were consequences. There was no police investigation, no states attorney, etc.

In the Middle Ages, clerics and nobles gathered affidavits (in effect) to "prove" their innocence. These would not have stood up to modern analysis. So there was a presumption of guilt, which moved things along nicely since the people bringing charges were usually nobles (and clerics). The charges were brought against vagrants, the poor, apparent brigands, who usually did not have the means or ability to defend themselves and certainly not before a judge (no attorney). So proving the presumption of innocence has "been forever" is provably false. Otherwise reliable sources showing otherwise online are not reliable in this regard.

The article is also Euro-Centric. It was probably worse worldwide. Student7 (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

reading the rape part...

does it mean that any female in britain can jail any man she had a sex with simply claiming that she was raped? a man obviously cannot prove that it was not forced unless they signed a paper, lol. clarify the article please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.154.66.240 (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

South Africa

What is up with the South African section? It needs serious fixing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I reverted to a prior version which did not contain POV. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-American

I've removed this from the lead: "Under Anglo-American common law, the accused is always presumed innocent in all types of proceedings; proof is always the burden of the accuser." There is no mention of this in the body of the article, and I don't think it's true. The concept of "innocence" is not commonly used in civil proceedings, and the standard of proof is balance of probabilities.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Presumption of Guilt should NOT redirect here

It is the exact opposite of the topic being discussed in this article. Xanikk999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC) I tried to fix it but I think I ended up messing up the redirect. Could someone fix it for me? Xanikk999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Presumption of guilt is on the rise. Blacks in the US, 'coup plotters' in Turkey, journalists in Russia, Moslems in many countries. The DVLA and motorists. Definitely time for a separate article.Crawiki (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

See also Fixed penalty notice.Crawiki (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Article on Presumption of guilt now exists Crawiki (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Presumption of guilt article is now under threat of deletion, a certain editor having eroded its content prior. For reasons stated above, this must be resisted. Please help. Crawiki (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)