Yesterday in our conversations in the car on the way home from my aunt’s place, there was a debate on whether there is such a law as guilty until proven innocent. So of course I googled it to see what I would find. Low and behold! There IS such a thing under the Labour Law in the state of California.
Disappointing nevertheless because it’s BORING!!! It would be interesting if it was in the human rights law.
The presumption of innocence - being innocent until proven guilty - is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. It states that no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to convince the court that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted; this idea expressed by the Latin legal maxim “In dubio pro reo”.
In principle, the defense does not have to ‘prove’ anything. However, the defense may present evidence tending to show that there is a doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
Conversely, in many authoritarian regimes the prosecution case is, in practice, believed by default unless the accused can prove they are innocent, a practice called presumption of guilt. Many people believe that presumption of guilt is unfair and even immoral because it allows the strategic targeting of any individual, since it’s often difficult to establish firm proof of innocence (for example, it’s often impossible to establish an alibi if the person is home alone at the time of the crime).
In many countries belonging to the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, the Principle of Presumption of Innocence is phrased such that “the accused is presumed to be innocent until it has been declared guilty by a court”.
Very clever!! I have to say that the English Language is the only language that has so many exceptions and can be manipulated to mean different things or manoeuver to (in street language) “save your ass”.
What I found interesting though was other articles written about “guilty until proven innocent”.
It speaks of how the state or government holds your “fingerprints”, “photo” etc.. to perform background checks on you. It also speaks of how the FBI can seize all your cash IF they “suspect” you of being a drug lord etc. And if these people DO get a case, then what about the other stuff?
So then I think to myself, these are indeed examples of actions in favour of “guilty until proven innocent”.
As I continue thinking, I begin to be aware of so many other things incorporated into our lives (that we might not have given a second thought) that mildly acts in judgment of us being guilty until proven innocent.
These are some of the things that came up:
1) Credit card sales people are ALWAYS in your face, and they don’t care whether your card gets approve or not as long as you fill in a form and allow them to photocopy your identification card and other credit cards so they can get a commission. The banks then do a credit check on you before approving your application. So much for innocent until proven guilty huh?
(Mind you, similar procedures are carried out in regards to loan application etc… but I’m not going to list them all down cause then it will be never ending and a waste of time reading).
2) In organisations, you get a raise AFTER you have proven that you are not a slacker and can actually perform your job well.
(Okay, maybe this is also based on competency, but isn’t that saying, “I don’t believe you can do your job well. But if you do, then you get a raise”?)
3) The saying that most people live by, “TRUST has to be earned”.
(This is what it actually means: I don’t trust you know. But you have something that might benefit me. And if you can PROVE you are worthy of my trust, then I will trust you to give me the thing that will benefit me.)
4) “Don’t trust strangers”.
(I mean, WHY not?? Aren’t strangers only strangers until they become your friend?? {See how English is so beautiful? Hahahaha..} And seriously, is it not true that some strangers are less likely to harm you than your own family members? Remember how the rape statistics indicate the high numbers on “people who know you”?)
5) In most relationships, especially the puppy love kind, where boy has to prove he’s sincerely “oh so in love - I’ll do anything for you” before girl accepts him to be a “boyfriend”.
(Sounds like - “I assume you want sex, money, etc… unless you show me that you have the time and money not to care about these things but me and how I FEEL, and the sex will come as long as you’re good in bed. By the way, have you been tested?”)
(Although in certain cases, a background check really IS important. You can’t have two thalassemia carrier adults marrying each other if they DO plan to have children right?? I have read nevertheless that this is such an evolutionary thing that we are automatically repulse by the individual that are similar to us genetically. I’m no genetic expert. But I have since learned why “Opposites Attract”* and how it can cause a lot of turmoil and disagreements in the relationship. See how crazy humans are??? Humans will wipe out humans…. eventually.)
*Note that an optimistic psychologist will always believe that partners are meant to “compliment” each other’s strengths and weaknesses and ARE able to acquire skills to do so.
6) The strong belief of employers in Theory X which assumes employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can as oppose to Theory Y which assumes employees may be ambitious, self-motivated, anxious to accept greater responsibility, and exercise self-control, self-direction, autonomy and empowerment.
(I can’t decide where I stand on this assumption. I do believe nevertheless that the government, culture and upbringing plays a huge role in employees’ attitude towards work. Sadly, majority of Malaysian employees only accentuates the existence of Theory X. And if there are any Theory Y people, they are already either their own bosses, entrepreneurs, or are sitting at top positions which allow them to exhibit Theory X.)
These are only a FEW at the top of my head over the past 1o minutes as I’m writing this and I’m sure there is more.
I suppose then that the many countries belonging to the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition are linguistically correct after all and that “the accused is presumed to be innocent until it has been declared guilty by a court”.
Innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent.
These phrases are best left in the books of law and in court. In the real world, we would all be criminals of some sort.
