The Presumption Of Innocence In The Criminal Justice System

The presumption of innocence is an entrenched right of the accused in the criminal justice system. Popularly expressed in the phrase ‘innocent until proven guilty’, it is a concept that sits squarely within the rule of law, which aims to protect individual rights from arbitrary and unjust governmental regulation. The presumption of innocence is the promise of an objective analysis of the evidence and facts, and is such an integral part of the adversary system that it is known as the ‘golden thread’ of the criminal justice system, aiding in striking a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community. The protection of these rights for those accused of crimes, is based on the rationale that it is better that the guilty
The media has now re-embodied itself into a ‘public court’, jeopardizing and endangering the presumption of innocence, it has the very high potential to interfere with the administration of justice. It has completely disregarded the detrimental vital gap between an accused and a convict with the golden principles of ‘presumption of innocence until proven guilty’ and ‘guilt beyond reasonable doubt’ at stake. What individuals now observe is trial by media where media coverage now allows individuals to hear, judge and condemn those accused, all from the comfort of their home. It standards contrary to the criminal justice system of evidence laws, dictating what information can be taken into account during the court case, and the presumption of innocence. By this way, it prejudices the public and even occasionally judges and as a result the accused, that should be assumed innocent, is presumed as a criminal leaving his rights and liberty unrepressed. If overpowering publicity in the media about an accused before trial prejudices a fair trial or results in portraying him as a person who had committed the crime, it may amount to an undue interference with the “administration of justice", even possibly resulting in an incapacity to
Despite a long history of community service, and a flawless record as a player, many presumed claims of domestic violence were justifiable. Although the allegations against him have been shown to be false, and the charges withdrawn by the police, the incident has come at a great personal cost, even though he has now been justified. His case has raised many questions regarding the overpowering nature of social media and how well individuals respect the notion of the presumption of innocence. Known as the ‘golden thread’ of the criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence acts in aiding in striking a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community. Even though the law must reflect this principle, unfortunately, and increasingly, it does not. In turn this has contributed to a growing community culture in which it has become more acceptable to judge a person based upon media coverage and political commentary, rather than on the basis of evidence presented. With inadequate rules designed to regulate such conduct to prevent the impingement of civil rights, a collision transpires between the rights to a fair trial on one hand, and the freedom of speech and public interest on the