Where does this idea come form? I can’t find it is the text of the Constitution. Could the Federal government or a state government declare people to be guilty until proven innocent through legislation?
It comes from English common law, as does most of our criminal procedure.
Legislatures can legislate whatever they want to. Whether that holds up under judicial review is another matter. It is unlikely that any court would consider such a law compatible with the somewhat vague notion of “due process,” which is guaranteed in the Constitution (Fifth Amendment).
if you look at European legal history, the principle that the accused cannot be convicted without proof was actually surprisingly recent when the Constitution was written. It was not reflected in the first central European criminal codes ca 1532.
During the reign of Louis IVX (late 1600s), the ruler or the judge as his agent was absolutely free to decide about punishments, there was no need for justification of his decision.
When proof was finally required, it didn’t always protect the rights of the accused as intended: confession was among the few (sometimes the only) absolute proof, so the prosecution sought to get one by any means possible. You probably recall examples of this reasoning in various countries during the Inquisition and other religious issues. Torture became a regular thing and suspected witches were made to confess or “tested” by being pushed in a river - if they didn’t sink, this was “proof” that they were guilty and they were burned If they did sink, well, problem solved. Sorry about the drowning, ma’am.
“Innocent until proven guilty” was indeed a worthwhile criterion. Ny that time, most people agreed with that principle intuitively or intellectually, but to this very day, Americans sometimes have significant difficulty accepting it emotionally. If you think about it, discussions of politics and law very often include statements along the lines of “But we know he’s guilty”, and clear implications that all the bother of really proving it is just gilding the lily.
No. The Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the presumption of innocence, but does cover it indirectly under the rubric “due process,” which appears in the fifth and 14th amendments:
U.S. Const., amend. V (emphasis added).
U.S. Const., amend. XIV, sec. 1 (emphasis added).
As to the idea’s origin, I doubt that there is any single “origin” than can be cited for “innocent until proven guilty.” The presumption of innocence is an ancient concept, going back at least to classical antiquity, and its first expression is probably lost to prehistory. The concept does not explicitly appear in the Constitution or other organic documents simply because it was so deeply embedded in the Anglo-American legal tradition that it went without saying. Even the Magna Carta (1215) implies the concept without spelling it out. For example:
Even modern constitutions typically omit stating the presumption explicitly. You can certainly find judicial opinions and jury instructions that do mention the concept explicitly, but they are always referring to a settled principle that is centuries old, and thus shed little light on its “origin.”
[Pet peeve mode on]
Excellent responses from others, but a nitpick: it’s not “innocent until proven guilty.” It’s “presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
Whether a person is innocent or guilty is an objective fact, regardless of whether the law has pronounced judgment or not. In fact, the law may not even be aware that a crime has occurred, yet a given person may, objectively, be innocent or guilty of committing that crime. Our legal system, however, grants every citizen the presumption of innocence, thereby placing the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Unless, of course, the Government decides to label that person an “enemy combatant.”
[Pet peeve mode off]
Along with the (excellent) historical information on the origins of the American judicial system comes the uniquely American notion of the individual’s relationship to government.
The Constitution is not as much a description of our Federal Government as it is a list of limitations on it. It was understood for a long time in our history that the Constituion is a contract with the people which allowed the existence of a Federal Government and would be made null and void if the government infringed on State and individual rights. The Bill of Rights was created to reiterate these understood rights specifically and prevent individual liberties from being taken away by government in any way, either State or Federal. Even the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers essentially argued whether the Constitution limited government enough. Rephrased, the Constitution does not grant Government rights (as most others do today), it limited Government’s ability to infringe on peoples’ rights.
Only in the US is the responsibilty of Government FIRST to protect the rights of individuals. Government should always lose when all things are equal and an individual’s rights are at stake. Imprisoning someone means infringing on their rights, and the notion was that it could only be done when absolutely sure that that person had infringed on someone else’s rights.
As an Anti-Federalist, I would argue that at least 85% of the Federal Government is Unconstitutional. The failure of Americans (especially teachers) to read and understand the Constitution is our greatest threat. The notion of a presumption of innocence has already ben taken away by both political parties along with the majority of our liberties. It’s only a matter of time until we are a Democracy instead of the Representative Republic that made our success unless this is understood again.
MFitz
Good point. My own nitpick is with “until”. In my opinion, “until” implies that the person charged with a crime will be found guilty of it at some time in the future. I prefer “Presumed innocent unless proven guilty.”
Of course we have had the alternative view of that distinguished legal scholar, Mr Edwin Meese Esq, who stated that there’s no such thing as an innocent suspect because by definition a suspect must be guilty of something in order to have become a suspect.
That’s an ongoing theme in the “war on terrorism” today, where the administration seems to be desperately groping for more reasons to void Constiuttional protections for various groups as “unnecessary” luxuries. That attitude is, as I said earlier, a longstanding tradition in the US (and everywhere else). I’d bet that Neanderthals sometimes expelled or killed scapegoats after various natural disasters
Oh, and BTW, I meant to say Louis XIV not IVX (which is about as bad a mangling of a Roman numeral as I’ve ever seen)
Not quite a nitpick, but a further qualification. An interesting consequence of this system, where the government must prove one guilty is that one is not found innocent if the government fails. One is acquited or found “not guilty.” This allows for the cynical speculation that although one was not convicted, one is not “innocent.” In other words, people will say, “yeah we know you weren’t convicted, but you were charged. You must have done something wrong.” Another consequence of this system is that if one is wrongly convicted, proving actual innocence may not be enough to get the conviction set aside in a habeas corpus proceeding. link. It might, but normally you need to make a showing beyond innocence.
Similarly, if your innocence of the charge is relevant for some reason, the may have to seek a factual finding of innocence. The accused normally has the burden of proof in those cases.