Understanding the presumption of innocence is not always easy, beyond accepting it in a generic sense. For many, it is like a song heard many times without knowing the lyrics. Why should a terrorist, rapist, or any other detestable person have rights? Why should they be arrested following a careful ritual? Why should they, if possible, remain on the streets and be judged by impeccably impartial judges? Why treat individuals who plant bombs to kill or violate children as if they were valuable ancient paintings?
One of the answers reframes the question. Rights are not designed to protect the guilty but the innocent. Legal processes, guaranteeing laws, and defense lawyers do not protect the abuser and the murderer but the innocent accused of abuse or murder. We protect those who seem guilty but are not. Semiotics is inadequate; we prioritize not making mistakes even if some guilty individuals escape justice.
When expressing political opinions, we must remember that intuition is not a good judge of instruction.
Care for the most disgusting accused is then logical and necessary. It is also essential to protect the partially innocent, someone guilty of theft but innocent of homicide. Years and circumstances teach us that things are often not what they seem: events often become complicated before becoming as clear as mud. Remember that Finagle’s Law affects us all from time to time: anything that can go wrong will go wrong at the worst moment. Having done nothing must be the magic ring that creates a protective shield, and it is the accusation that must prove guilt.
Furthermore, remember that we do not condemn detestable people but detestable deeds. Therefore, journalistic information coming from El Salvador, about mass arrests without due process, raises ethical concerns among some commentators: it is well understood to want to eradicate crime, but what about the innocent incarcerated? It is different if somewhere there is a state of anarchy or war, and the rule of law is unable to act with the Criminal Procedure Code.
The practical costs of the presumption of innocence imply that it is not applied (or applied minimally) in many areas such as administrative, labor, and tax law; in states of emergency or on the Ukrainian front. It makes sense – administering finances must be done efficiently, and context is crucial. It is not the same to be accused of evading VAT as it is to be accused of strangling a retiree.
A very different realm is politics. Here too, the presumption of innocence in terms of criminality must be respected. It is not fair to judge a political figure just because they are accused, investigated, or indicted. Another thing is evaluating actions and deeds, pending trial or not, carried out by former leaders in Spain, presidential candidates, or even the god of thunder. It is just and appropriate that, in a democracy, news is politically judged by citizens but with a reminder of the potential innocence.
When expressing political opinions, we must remember that intuition is not a good judge of instruction and that evaluating a book solely by its title and the author’s name leads to many mistakes. Therefore, we must continue to do what we always do: use reliable sources; identify facts soberly; assess events impartially; vote rationally, and not fuel pre-established discourses.
Article written by Marc Murtra and published in La Vanguardia: El trueno y la presunción de inocencia time machine
