It is not always easy to understand the presumption of innocence, beyond accepting it generically. For many it is that song listened to many times without knowing what, well, the lyrics say. Why should a terrorist, rapist or other type of despicable person have rights; he must be arrested following a careful liturgy; must he remain, if possible, in the street, and be tried by exquisitely impartial judges? Why treat people who plant bombs to kill or rape children as if they were valuable old paintings?
One of the answers changes the question. Rights are not designed to protect the guilty, but the innocent. Safeguard processes, laws and defense lawyers do not protect the abuser and murderer, they protect the innocent accused of abuse or murder. We protect what looks guilty and isn’t. Semiotics is insufficient, we prioritize not making mistakes even if it means that some culprits escape justice. Dealing with the most disgusting defendant is then logical and necessary.
So is protecting the partially innocent, the person guilty of theft but innocent of murder. Years and circumstances teach that things are often not what they seem: events often get complicated to end up as clear as mud. Let’s remember that Finagle’s law affects us all from time to time: something that can go wrong, will go wrong at the worst possible time. Having done nothing must be the magic ring that generates a protective screen and it is the accusation that must prove guilt. We also remember that we do not condemn execrable people, but execrable deeds. For this reason, the journalistic information that reaches us from El Salvador, of mass arrests without due process, generates ethical concern in some commentators: it is well understood to want to eradicate crime, but what happens to the innocent imprisoned? Another thing is that somewhere there is a state of anarchy or war and the Rule of Law is unable to act with the Criminal Procedure law.
The practical costs of the presumption of innocence mean that it is not applied (or applied little) in many areas such as administrative, labor and tax law; in states of emergency or on the Ukrainian front. It makes sense, administering the Treasury must be done in an efficient way and the context is crucial: it is not the same to accuse someone of skipping a VAT as it is to accuse them of strangling a pensioner.
Another very different area is that of politics. In this area it is also necessary to respect the presumption of innocence in terms of criminality. It is not fair to judge a political leader for being accused, investigated or charged. Another thing is the assessment of actions and facts, pending trial or not, carried out by former leaders in Spain, by presidential candidates or by the god of thunder himself. It is fair and appropriate that in a democracy the news is judged politically by the citizens but remembering the possibly innocent.
When thinking politically we must remember that intuition is not a good judge of instruction and that valuing a book only by the title and the name of the author generates many mistakes. That is why we must continue to do what we all always do: use reliable sources; identify the facts soberly; assess events impartially; vote rationally, and not feed pre-established speeches.
