Assuming that the Defendant Is Not Guilty: The Presumption of Innocence in the German System of Criminal Justice

The presumption of innocence is not a presumption but an assumption or legal fiction. It requires agents of the state to treat a suspect or defendant in the criminal process as if he were in fact innocent. The presumption of innocence has a limited field of application. It applies only to agents of the state, and only during the criminal process. The presumption of innocence as such does not determine the amount of evidence necessary to find a defendant guilty. In spite of these limits, the presumption of innocence protects suspects and defendants from specific dangers inherent in the criminal process. German procedure law is used to show these areas.     

The Right to be Presumed Innocent

The presumption of innocence has often been understood as a doctrine that can be explained primarily by instrumental concerns relating to accurate fact-finding in the criminal trial and that has few if any implications outside the trial itself. In this paper, I argue, in contrast, that in a liberal legal order everyone has a right to be presumed innocent simply in virtue of being a person. Every person has a right not to be subjected to criminal punishment unless and until he or she has done something that is criminally wrong. Since disagreements about allegations of criminal wrongdoing are inevitable, the liberal legal order requires a process for determining whether wrongdoing has occurred. In order to preserve the right not to be punished without wrongdoing, the accused person must be presumed innocent throughout this process. The presumption of innocence is therefore as much a basic human right as, for example, the right to bodily integrity or the right to freedom of expression. Specifications of and limitations on the right should therefore be justified not primarily in terms of their instrumental effectiveness in fact-finding or crime control but in terms of the role of the criminal process in a liberal legal order. I consider some implications of this view of the presumption of innocence for the pre-trial process and for substantive criminal law. I argue that the presumption of innocence, understood as a basic human right, should condition the entire pre-trial process; it has, however, minimal implications for the definition of offences.     

Who is Presumed Innocent of What by Whom?

The article analyses the components of the presumption of innocence and tries to clarify some of the conceptual and logical difficulties surrounding the notion of ‘innocence’ and the structure of legal presumptions. It is argued that all conceivable literal interpretations of the maxim make little or no sense, and that the presumptions form is, as such, devoid of original content: presumptions do not explain nor justify anything but are auxiliary norms which refer to the legal consequences spelled out in other norms. Therefore, the presumption of innocence can be used to express any kind of requirement and standard for the criminal process and the treatment of suspect citizens only in a tautological, albeit rhetorically forceful, way. This instrumental use of the presumption of innocence is theoretically without merit but can be practically beneficial as long as there is no developed system of fundamental rights and protections of individual freedoms in a given legal order. Finally, a functional understanding of the presumption of innocence is proposed which gives it an original, though limited field of application as a guarantee of the procedure itself, in particular of the openness of the outcome.     

无罪推定的法律效果比较研究——一种历时分析

无罪推定最初表现为一种富有人权保障价值的证据法原则。但由于产生背景和发展进路的不同,无罪推定在英美法系和大陆法系的功能定位和法律效果上有一定差别:前者将其作为审判阶段的证明规则,后者则以无罪推定的证据法内涵为基础,充分挖掘其程序法意义,将其塑造为具有多重法律效果的人权原则。二战后,无罪推定的国际化虽然推动了无罪推定法律效果限制和生效范围的一些共同基准的形成,但对各法系无罪推定法律效果的影响并不均衡。     

无罪推定原则的意义解读——一种诉讼法哲学分析

无罪推定已经成为现代国家的一项刑事诉讼法原则乃至宪法原则。无罪推定在各国立法例中虽然有肯定式和否定式两种表述方式 ,但其基本内涵却是相同的 ,即 :任何人在没有充分证据证明并由法院判决确定有罪之前 ,应作为无罪公民对待。作为一种关于正义的规范性命题 ,无罪推定原则具有内在的基本特征和诉讼程序规则 ,具有深厚的社会哲学基础和重要的政治法律意义。在建设社会主义法治国家进程中 ,无罪推定原则的进一步发展与完善 ,成为当代中国刑事诉讼法制现代化的迫切需要和时代课题。     

通过正当的法律程序控制死刑——从公正审判权的国际标准谈我国死刑司法程序的完善

公正审判权的国际标准大体上包括平等的法律保护权、无罪推定的权利、侦查阶段的人权、审判阶段的人权、判决后的救济权、不受重复追究的权利和在适用刑法方面的权利七个方面。我国法律规定了着眼于限制死刑适用的特别司法程序,但对照国际标准,这一程序在立法和实施两个方面均存在明显的问题,并由此产生了相当严重的危害后果。为了保证死刑案件的公正审判,严防错杀无辜,争取在合理可接受的限度内平稳地减少死刑的数量,立法人员和司法人员应当坚决摒弃长期以来主导刑事司法全过程的专政型司法观念,尽快树立公正型司法观念;立法机关和司法机关应当参照公正审判权的国际标准全面完善我国死刑案件的侦查程序、一审程序、二审程序、死刑复核程序和审判监督程序。     

“疑罪从无”原则的艰难展开——以李怀亮案件为视角

实现“疑罪从无”是杜绝冤假错案发生的必由之路,是尊重和保障人权的基本需要,是顺应刑事证明责任理论的基本要求.“疑罪从无”原则在我国目前还很难实现,主要原因在于“有罪推定”思想根深蒂固、正当程序理念缺失和诉讼结构严重失衡.要实现“疑罪从无”,必须严格贯彻“无罪推定”思想,牢固树立法院“审判中心主义”思维,全面把握“证据裁判原则”的精髓.     

The right to a fair trial as a conceptual framework for digital evidence rules in criminal investigations

Digital evidence and digital forensics have a significant impact on criminal investigation. This requires an examination if the fair trial principle remains sound in the new domain.In this paper the right to a fair trial in Art. 6 ECHR and its interpretation in case law is analysed in order to clarify its connection to evidence law and its specific application to the investigation stage of criminal proceedings. It is argued that the principle implicitly enshrines a framework for the development of universal evidence rules . Derived are two-groups of evidence rules: equality of arms based and presumption of innocence based. For each group specific challenges in the digital investigation are outlined and discussed in the context of a new governance model for digital evidence.     

The Juror,the Citizen,and the Human Being: The Presumption of Innocence and the Burden of Judgment

In this essay, I suggest that the criminal trial is not only about the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but also about the character and growth of the jurors and the communities they represent. In earlier work, I have considered the potential impact of law and politics on the character of citizens, and thus on the capacity of citizens to thrive—to live full and rich human lives. Regarding the jury, I have argued that aspects of criminal trial procedure work to fix in jurors a sense of agency in and responsibility for verdicts of conviction. Here, I draw on those ideas with respect to the presumption of innocence. I suggest that the presumption of innocence works not primarily as legal rule, but rather as a moral framing device—a sort of moral discomfort device—encouraging jurors to feel and bear the weight of what they do. I offer an account of character development in which virtues are conceived of not merely as modes of conduct developed through habituation and practice, but also as capacities and ways of being developed in part through understanding and experience. The criminal trial, framed by the presumption of innocence, can be an experience through which jurors and their communities, by learning what it means and feels like to carry a certain sort of moral weight, may engender a certain set of moral strengths—strengths valuable to them not just as jurors, but also as citizens, and as human beings.     

论人权保障语境下的捕前羁押制度改革

目前,人权保障已经成为时代主题.国家要尊重和保障人权,政府要保证公民幸福而有尊严地生活.犯罪嫌疑人在无罪推定的语境之下,应该享有正常的人权保障,在未经公正审判确定其罪的情况下,以羁押的方式剥夺其作为基本人权的人身自由,需要严格的审查方式,因为羁押在折抵刑期的意义上与徒刑所带来的惩罚是相当的.     

论美国刑事诉讼中的证明责任分配标准

在美国的刑事证明责任分配标准中,犯罪构成要件标准一直占据着正统的地位,而无罪推定标准只是昙花一现。无罪推定标准无法长期在美国刑事证明责任的分配中占据一席之地的原因在于:第一,无罪推定标准与美国的犯罪构成模式格格不入;第二,在美国采用无罪推定标准更不利于保护被告人权利。犯罪构成要件标准的优点在于它既与美国对抗式的刑事诉讼模式相契合,又降低了控方的证明负担,有利于提高起诉的效率;它的缺点在于有时很难区分犯罪构成要素与辩护理由。     

Unwitting subjects of surveillance and the presumption of innocence

Mass surveillance programmes introduced by several EU Member States influence the protection that citizens enjoy on the basis of fundamental rights and freedoms. This paper focuses on the impact that these programmes have on the legal principle of presumption of innocence. The authors argue that even in those circumstances where the principle does not immediately apply because mass surveillance is undertaken before any criminal charge is issued, the collection of information and potential evidence limits the guarantees offered by the principle during the stages of a legal process. It is argued that mass surveillance programmes undermine the role of the principle of presumption of innocence at the stages of a criminal process and compromise, therefore, the very effectiveness of the legal process.     

Law as a branch of applied psychology

Because the law for the most part consists of a system of rules for the control of human social behaviour, the law may be taken as a branch of applied psychology. However, one may well ask how good lawyers are as applied psychologists. As a partial answer to this question two well-known issues in criminal law are explored; the deterrent effect of punishment and the viability of the presumption of innocence. It is argued that lawyers, although they tend to speak in confusing ways about the deterrent effect of punishment, in practice show themselves to be pretty good applied psychologists. This is different with respect to the viability of the presumption of innocence, as they do not appear to realize that the ways in which criminal trials are commonly conducted cannot but violate this sacred principle of due process.     

论刑事推定的合宪性审查

刑事推定不仅涉及实体法上犯罪构成要件的设置和程序法上证明责任的分配与承担,还涉及司法权力的重新配置,对其合宪性进行审查是亟待引起重视的一个新问题。推定的合宪性审查标准是多元的。无罪推定是现代刑事法的一项基本原则,是被告人应该享有的重要的宪法性权利,探讨推定的合宪性审查,必须审视推定与无罪推定之间的关系。     

Incompatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 subscriber appeal process provisions with Article 6 of the ECHR

Through case-law research, this paper critically assesses the compatibility of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA) subscriber appeal process provisions (Section 13 of the DEA) with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Drawing on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law, Ofcom's Initial Obligations Code (the Code), and the DEA judicial review decision, namely, BT PLC and Talk Talk PLC v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills and others, this paper focuses on the three Strasbourg Court principles of equality of arms, admissibility of evidence, and presumption of innocence, in an effort to determine whether Section 13 of the DEA infringes them, and whether this constitutes a breach of a subscriber's right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. The paper examines these three ECtHR principles. It contrasts such principles with the Code's provisions, and considers the compatibility of Section 13 of the DEA with Article 6 of the ECHR. It concludes that the DEA subscriber appeal process provisions do indeed infringe these principles, thus constituting a violation of subscribers' right to a fair trial. It also recommends that the UK government start taking seriously human rights in general, and Article 6 of the ECHR in particular.     

The Presumption of Innocence and the Human Rights Act

There has recently been a proliferation of case law dealing with potential inroads into the presumption of innocence in the criminal law of England and Wales, in the light of article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article is concerned with the nature of the presumption of innocence. It considers two central issues. The first is how the courts should address the question of when the presumption of innocence is interfered with. The second is the extent to which interference with the presumption of innocence may be justified on the grounds of proportionality. It is argued that the courts have not developed the appropriate concepts and principles properly to address these questions.     

The media coverage of court proceedings in Europe: Striking a balance between freedom of expression and fair process

Press curiosity to report on legal proceedings has been a salacious feature in history of mass media. Pre-trial comment, media coverage of press proceedings and the protection of privacy of the defendant are some of the main legal issues which are raised by the ambiguous relation of media to court proceedings. The Internet revolution and the emergence of the blogosphere have added a new dimension to the analysis of these legal issues. A balance between freedom of expression and the guarantee of a fair unprejudiced process has to be achieved in the context of application of legal mechanisms of protection of the justice’s authority, such as contempt of court. As regards the question of media coverage of the court proceedings, the decision of the UK Supreme Court on May 2011 to permit television coverage of its hearings demonstrates an important shift as regards how publicity is perceived by the administration of justice in the UK, while there is a certain disparity between national legislators in the way they deal with this issue at a European level. The legal question of the protection of the defendant through the effective guarantee of the presumption of innocence and, consequently, that of a fair trial is often combined with the debate about the right of the defendant’s privacy not only when there is a pressing social need for information to the public before or during the court trial but also many years after the end of the legal proceedings.     

证据法的基本权利保障取向

证据法的理性主义传统,既要求通过理性证明的方式去查明事实真相,而非诉诸神明和暴力;又不以追求真相为最高目的,而是将其视为实现正义的手段。这种理性传统,决定了法治国家证据制度具有求真、求善的双重功能,并将公正奉为首要价值,从而奠定了基本权利保障的价值取向。我国证据法学研究和证据制度建设正在经历从义务本位向权利本位转型,权利意识逐步觉醒。在这个转型过程中,应该将人权司法保障奉为证据法公正价值的核心内容,在贯彻无罪推定、不得自证其罪原则的前提下,确保刑事被告质证权的行使,发挥非法证据排除规则、作证特免权规则对刑事被告基本权利的保障作用。     

A Criminal Injustice System? Sex Offender Suspects and Defendants

The purpose of this paper is to open up a discussion regarding the potential shift from the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt regarding those suspected of or charged with sexual offending. It is acknowledged that further investigation is needed and it is hoped that this discussion is one of many. The crux of this paper therefore is that sex offender suspects and defendants potentially find themselves in a criminal injustice system. Whilst the focus is predominantly on ‘victims’ (usually female) and people suspected or charged with sexual offending (usually male) within the criminal justice system in England and Wales the concerns articulated here are not confined to this context. For example such concerns are echoed in relation to the potential injustices occurring on American campuses. This demonstrates that this is a domestic and international situation and a situation that extends beyond the criminal justice system. We argue that what is occurring at home and abroad has to be contextualised with regard to public, media and official attitudes and approaches to ‘victims’, suspects, defendants, sex, sexual consent, sexual offending and a subsequent shift from the presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt. It is argued that not only is the presumption of innocence undermined by the presumption of guilt regarding suspects and defendants in cases of sexual offending, it is also undermined in England and Wales by the victim personal statement (VPS). The VPS contains and promotes the idea that there is a ‘victim’ and ‘offender’ before this has been legally established in a court of law. These assumptions embodied within the VPS weaken the principle and practice of the presumption of innocence. The safeguard of the presumption of innocence is potentially under threat and the result is an even greater potential for miscarriages of justice and wrongful convictions.     

The Prosecutor and the Presumption of Innocence

In what ways is the conduct of prosecutors constrained by the presumption of innocence? To address this question, I first develop an account of the presumption in the trial context, according to which it is a vital element in a moral assurance procedure for the justified infliction of legal punishment. Jurors must presume the factual innocence of defendants at the outset of trials and then be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by the government’s evidence before they convict defendants. Prosecutors’ responsibilities to promote the integrity of this moral assurance procedure are then divided into pre-trial, during-trial, and post-trial phases. Since most charge adjudication is effected through plea bargaining, the ways in which plea procedures must be modified to conform to this moral assurance procedure, and thus honor the presumption of innocence, are also discussed.