All Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty

In the complex relationship between the singular individual and the Gargantuan state, the protections afforded the individual are never so valuable as when they are under the most stress or challenge. The First Amendment, for instance, is particularly vital not for protecting an opinion or utterance with which everyone agrees, but for protecting opinion that is unpopular.

In a similar way, the principle of the presumption of innocence--long established in British and American law--is needed not only when the evidence against the accused is scanty but also when the evidence might appear to be substantial. Thus, in the case of the gruesome slayings of Nicole Simpson, the former wife of O. J. Simpson, and her friend Ronald Lyle Goldman, this vital principle is especially needed.

Regardless of Mr. Simpson’s ultimate guilt or innocence, our criminal justice system can function properly only under that premise of initial assumed innocence. As the great jurist Learned Hand said, “God knows there is risk in refusing to act till the facts are all in; but is there not greater risk in abandoning the conditions of all rational inquiry?”

The time-honored principle of presuming innocence until guilt is proven is valuable in another way. Many people have admired this athlete and celebrity over the years and find it hard to bring themselves to believe him capable of the crime of murder. But disbelief or skepticism has a healthy place in the American system of justice: Barring an outright confession, any citizen, famous or not, is regarded as innocent of the charges until the verdict is pronounced.