Mihail Pojarsky/Presumption of innocence

After each next scandal associated with harassment, abuse and the like, the topic of the "presumption of innocence" pops up. Some say that, they say, one cannot accuse people without hard evidence, others say that the "presumption of innocence" is only for the court, and "public opinion" is not obliged to be guided by it.

But let's think: why do we need the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings? To protect the individual from the state. Why should he be protected? Because the individual is weak, and the state is an organized group that is always stronger. However, is the state the only example of an organized group? The state is, of course, the only organized group that has a license to be violent. However, there are many organized groups in the world: a community, a church, a labor union, a party, or a tight-knit community of progressive journalists. They also have some form of power and can ruin your life. Therefore, "human rights" is not only about the protection of the individual from the state, but about protection from collective action as such.

Therefore, the presumption of innocence should be interpreted not only as a procedural norm, but also as a moral principle. In this case, it's not a toggle switch with two "on" and "off" positions, but a soft scale on which you can move depending on how well organized the prosecution is and how high the stakes are. In cases of abuse, we see that accusations can lead to ostracism, and an organized group of journalists, bloggers, etc., is opposed by the accused. (who initially refuse any analysis of the situation).

Therefore, there are grounds here, if not to apply the "presumption of innocence" in its purest form, then at least to have reasonable doubts.

Mihail Pojarsky 2021-03-21