The Lesser Evil

My personal opinion on the subject-matter is not much different from the view that is central in the judicial systems of the absolute majority of countries in the world. The presumption of innocence is an underlying principle, on which the modern law is based. The civilization has come a long way before accepting this creed and I think that the respect for human life that is closely tied with this idea is the most conclusive evidence of our moral evolution.
Over the course of centuries courts have adopted other concepts, such as the burden of proof and the reasonable doubt. Together they are employed to reduce any possibility of a person being wrongfully convicted. If we look closer into those principles we will understand that it is rather logical and sensible that “the proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies”. Imagine a situation, where you are accused of something very ridiculous on no grounds whatsoever and then left with the burden of justifying yourself. You might feel humiliated and confused and rightfully so. This is why it is a common sense that the party making the initial statement has to supply it with enough evidence to start a legal process.
All this system is designed so that absolutely no innocent man should be punished for something he did not do and that no offender should escape the consequences. Why do we make such an accent on the first part? It may sound as if the second part is ignored or given less attention in general but in reality both are equally important to the process. But the respect for every man’s freedom plays central role here. By accepting the fact that most people in the society are not criminals we inevitably have to agree that every particular defendant in a case is also likely not a criminal, unless proven otherwise. The task of proving so is often enormously difficult, but that is because it must be so. The “reasonable doubt” that is frequently mentioned here is not just some words.   This “Reason”, when...