People are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
We all have the problem of what do you do with the not-guilty-yet in free and democratic societies where you have the presumption of innocence. It's a very difficult problem.
Everyone is innocent unless proven otherwise.
Presumptions of guilt or innocence may sometimes be strengthened or weakened by the place of birth and kind of education and associates a man has grown up with, and good character may at times interpose, and justly save, under suspicion, one who is accused of crime on slight circumstances.
Some may remember, if you have good memories, that there used to be a concept in Anglo-American law called a presumption of innocence, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Now that's so deep in history that there's no point even bringing it up, but it did once exist.
An important and fundamental premise of the American judicial system is the presumption of innocence, that is until proven guilty.
Innocence always calls mutely for protection when we would be so much wiser to guard ourselves against it: innocence is like a dumb leper who has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no harm.
The United States government can indict you on something, and now you've got to prove your innocence. And that's not the Constitution of the United States.
Victims suggest innocence. And innocence, by the inexorable logic that governs all relational terms, suggests guilt.
Innocence most often is a good fortune and not a virtue.
Innocence does not find near so much protection as guilt.