Attacks on the presumption of innocence!

[Hepcat]

I've always regarded the presumption of innocence under law as a fundamental safeguard in a free society since it constitutes a bulwark against the power of the State to imprison or in other ways punish individuals who are deemed "troublesome". Sadly my commitment to this presumption is not as universal as I would hope. Attacks on the presumption of innocence can come disguised in sheep's clothing. For example:

What disturbs me is that you think your devotion to this principle is absolute....

It is.

...but you won't hold the accusers by this standard. With the accused you're ready to say you know he's innocent until proven otherwise, but you won't say that about the accusers.

Of course not! The reason is self-evident to even a moderately thoughtful individual.

The accusers aren't the ones who need protection. It's the accused who faces punishment if the charge sticks.

The presumption of innocence means that the case against the accused must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is therefore on the accuser. The accuser brought the claim against the accused, and therefore the accuser must prove the truth of the claim. If the accuser cannot, then why the claim against the accused? It's up to the accuser to put up the evidence, or shut up. That's an intrinsic corollary to the presumption of innocence.

You however seem to want to automatically believe the accuser. That would be an abomination since that would completely undermine the presumption of innocence of the accused!

You can pretend to be a champion of justice and integrity all you want, but I see right through it.

There's no pretence on my part. I'm a Libertarian and as such a staunch defender of individual liberty against the power of the State.

You aren't a judge or a lawyer....

I don't need to be. The presumption of innocence is not for their protection; it's for mine. And I'm certainly well enough versed in logical principles to understand the underlying rationale behind the presumption of innocence.

...you are making a personal choice to believe that what these people have said is not true.

No. My choice is quite simple. My choice has always been to defend the rights of the individual against the power of the State.

So no, it doesn't seem to me like your devotion to this principle is absolute, seeing how you so quickly choose when to apply it and when not to.

For whatever reason you're choosing to misunderstand the presumption of innocence. It's a concept applicable to specifically the accused. The onus is on the accuser to prove his claim.

I prefer to stand up for the victims of such behavior.

And how precisely will weakening the protections for the accused thus making it more readily possible for the wrong person to be convicted "aid" the victim?

And in the case we were previously discussing, how can we be sure there even was a victim (other than the deceased accused)? Isn't that the issue under consideration?

I prefer to stand up for the victims of such behavior. You don't. That is truly disturbing.

And what disturbs me is that your reinterpretation of this time honoured concept could swiftly lead to the jack-booted fascism of an Orwellian nightmare where the accused are deemed guilty as soon as charged and are simply taken in front of a "judge" for sentencing.

[Mike Scott]

I don't want to start this up again.

Please use PM for this subject, from now on.