Why is innocent until proven guilty

Any form of restraint in court should be strictly limited and should only be used where a case-specific decision has been made by the court that this is required. Relevant information on circumstances relevant to the necessity of restraints should be provided to judges well in advance of hearings.

Cages or glass boxes should be removed from all courtrooms. Training of law enforcement officials is needed to change the culture in relation to the use of restraining measures and special protections against the use of restraints should be put in place for vulnerable groups of suspects children, elderly people, pregnant women. The presumption of innocence is protected as a matter of law in a wealth of human rights instruments and in national legal systems. It is crucial to ensuring a fair trial in individual cases, to protecting the integrity of the justice system, and to protecting the human dignity of people who are accused of committing crimes.

It is clear that the presumption of innocence is affected by how suspects are presented in public, by statements made in public by public authorities about ongoing proceedings, by the content and tone of press coverage, and by the use of restraints in courtrooms or in public settings.

There is huge appetite for sensational, real-crime, real-time stories. This creates pressure for public authorities and the media to violate the presumption of innocence. Even without this, it would be challenging to implement these aspects of the presumption of innocence. For example, bright-line rules are hard to define: sometimes it will be necessary to arrest a person in a public place even if that exposes them to press scrutiny or to restrain them in court even if that could affect how they are perceived by the decision-maker.

Protecting the presumption of innocence also has to be balanced against other aspects of the right to a fair trial such as the principle of open justice and other human rights such as free speech. The EU Directive is an important first step in making the presumption of innocence a reality in Europe but the EU will have to invest considerable time and political will to ensure its effective implementation.

Meaningful reform will require profound changes of law, practice and culture. Robust laws are important, but a formalistic legal approach will not suffice. Long-term engagement of law enforcement, legal professionals including judges, prosecutors and the defence and the media will be crucial, alongside broader public education. It is a clear violation of the presumption of innocence for a public authority to make public statements implying the guilt of a suspect.

In practice, however, such statements are a common occurrence in many countries across the globe including in Europe , particular where there is considerable public interest due to the nature of the offence or identity of the suspect. The important principle that media should be protected from being required to reveal their sources, facilitates the systemic press reliance on leaks from public authorities.

These can take various forms: the press being tipped off about a high-profile arrest, the disclosure of the identity of a suspect or leaking of evidence.

Such leaks are exceedingly hard to investigate and sanction, and can create significant bias in press reporting. Clear legal regimes are required to prohibit public officials making public statements implying the guilt of a suspect. Journalists should not be required to reveal their sources but efforts should still be taken to address the issue of leaks to the press and to sanction violations , for example:.

Where it is found that public officials have made public statements implying the guilt of a suspect, redress must be provided. In particularly severe cases, this threatens the chance of the suspect receiving a fair trial, or undermines the integrity of the justice system, it may be appropriate to drop criminal charges or quash a conviction. It is, however, clear that even where countries seek to impose secrecy, this frequently fails where there is considerable public interest in the story.

Suspects are commonly presented as though they are guilty particularly in attention-grabbing headlines and reporting is often unbalanced against the suspect.

Although the picture certainly varies between countries and between sections of the press, there is clearly a huge problem. It is not, however, one that is easily addressed at least, not by legal regulation due to the important principle of media freedom, and the growing range of media outlets and the democratisation of the news through social media.

Training should be offered to journalists on the presumption of innocence to help them understand this important but complex issue and the impact their reporting can have. Training should be based on the personal participation of former defendants who can share their personal experience on how the coverage of their trial impacted their lives during and after the proceeding.

Only the journalists who have undergone training on these issues should be allowed to cover criminal proceedings c. It would also be valuable to monitor press coverage for example, of high-profile crime-related stories and to use this to expose and respond in a timely fashion to reporting that violates the presumption of innocence.

The adoption of a blanket prohibition on taking photos of people in restraints. In some extreme cases, for example involving statements by senior political figures or authorities directly involved in the criminal proceedings, where this could fundamentally threaten the integrity of the justice system, and the chance of a fair trial, it may be appropriate to drop criminal charges or quash a conviction. Other remedies might include the payment of compensation, publishing corrections or making public apologies.

Research has shown that if people see an image of someone being arrested they are likely to think the person is guilty; and that the more severe the restraint used, the more likely this is. Despite this perhaps because of it in many countries it is common for suspects to be paraded before the media at the time of their arrest or during transfers to and from court.

There is no doubt about the press appetite for these images. The perp walk has nevertheless become ubiquitous in some countries, most famously the US.

No one should be assumed to be guilty just because they were accused of a crime. This is because due process is vitally important to protecting our rights as citizens. If we did not have a guarantee of due process in the Constitution, the protections that are specified in the Bill of Rights would be meaningless. Due process of law is a constitutional guarantee that prevents governments from treating citizens in an unfair or abusive manner.

The other purpose of due process is to ensure that society is only punishing those who have been proven to be guilty of a crime and allowing the innocent to go free. Facing Charges? If you are facing criminal charges or you believe your right to due process has not been upheld, it is crucial that you have a qualified legal professional to help you fight for your rights.

Contact an experienced Will County criminal defense attorney to discuss your case and explore your available options. Call for a free, confidential consultation with Attorney Jack L. Zaremba today. The maxim,' Innocent until proven guilty', has had a good run in the twentieth century. The United Nations incorporated the principle in its Declaration of Human Rights in under article eleven, section one. The maxim also found a place in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in [as article 6, section 2] and was incorporated into the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [as article 14, section 2].

This was a satisfying development for Americans because there are few maxims that have a greater resonance in Anglo-American, common law jurisprudence.