Andrew Deegan Attorney at Law – The Internet is Changing the Presumption of Innocence
The principle of the presumption of innocence hinges on the idea that an accused person is innocent of the alleged crime until proven guilty. This fair assumption also shifts the burden of proving innocence from the accused and places it on the accuser. The law also presumes that a defendant is innocent until he or she is proven guilty. For instance, criminal law requires the government to prove any allegations made against an accused person, beyond any reasonable doubt. Practically, jurors cannot convict a defendant if they had the slightest hint of uncertainty regarding the defendant’s guilt. 
The accuser must prove all the elements of the crime beyond any reasonable doubt before the accused is convicted. Having been apprehended, incarcerated, cited for, or charged with an offense does not lead to an assumption that the accused is guilty. Only a legitimate trial can prove a person’s guilt except when the accused forgoes a trial and enters a guilty plea. The prosecutor must persuade the jury that the defendant is guilty. At the same time, the defendant or their criminal defense attorney must cast doubt on the allegations. Despite these regulations, the Internet is propagating injustice by changing the presumption of innocence. The public no longer seems to recognize that a person remains innocent until proven guilty. 
Origin of the Presumption of Innocence
Criminal justice has held the presumption of innocence as a valuable foundation for centuries. This presumption stems from the old rule that an accuser must provide evidence of the defendant’s guilt before the defendant is penalized. The Code of Hammurabi is among the 13 earliest compilations of criminal legislation. This code placed the burden of proof on the accuser, and if they failed to demonstrate the guilt of the accused, the accuser would face severe consequences. Though the measure appears extreme, it emphasized the presumption of innocence and eliminated false accusations.   
In Ancient Greece, a defendant’s right to innocence was recognized until indisputable evidence of their guilt was demonstrated. Without such evidence, society had no authority to treat the accused like a criminal. Similarly, Roman law rested the responsibility of proving guilt on the accuser. The principle behind it was that having a guilty person freed was better than punishing an innocent individual.
These practices influenced the law, and during the successive centuries, the presumption of innocence was advanced through principles of the common law. 
The Constitution, the Presumption of Innocence, and Freedom of Expression
Any person accused of an offense has a right to be presumed innocent. Although there is no specific language that refers to this presumption in the constitution, there are constitutional amendments that support this principle. The Fourth, the Fifth, the Sixth, the Eighth, and the Fourteenth Amendments all contain language that expresses protection for accused persons.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments refer to the due process. This process is the right of an individual to receive fair and appropriate procedural treatment from the government. The Fifth Amendment provides that due process must be followed before an accused person is deprived of their property, liberty, or life. The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right of an accused person to receive a fair trial as basic liberty.
The Sixth Amendment supports the rule of due process by guaranteeing the accused their right to a quick but efficient trial. An accused person should not be detained for an unfair length of time because it would deny a possibly innocent person of their property, liberty, and life.
After the ratification of the constitution, the Supreme Court took more than a century before its first ruling on whether the presumption of innocence applies to criminal cases. Since the verdict, the boundary between the presumption of evidence and the principle of proving guilt beyond any reasonable doubt became blurry. This blurred line has caused the presumption of innocence to seem more of a procedure and less of a fundamental right for defendants. This view has weakened the principle, and it may remain uncorrected if the legislature or the judiciary does not take action.
The First Amendment safeguards freedom of speech, which includes the Internet. Defamation laws are designed to protect accused persons from false, damaging statements. These laws are a vital remedy where false statements have destroyed individuals’ reputations, health, and finances. However, laws on free speech and defamation laws converge regularly. It is vital to protect the citizens from damage by false statements and also protect speakers from being intimidated. Balancing between the two laws is difficult, and this imbalance is often used in libel cases.
Does Public Opinion Recognize “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”?
In ancient Roman law, the presumption of innocence was exercised through the practice of “him who alleges bears the burden of proof and not him who denies.” The prosecution is obligated to prove all elements of the crime beyond any shadow of a doubt. The presumption of innocence is an opportunity to save people from false accusations and from jail time for crimes they never committed. 
Unfortunately, the Internet is a perfect channel for the punishment of an accused after a public trial in the illegitimate court of public opinion. Once a person is accused of a crime, the presumption of innocence suddenly becomes ‘guilty until proven innocent.’ Independent thinking and common sense are abandoned and replaced with public backlash, harsh judgments, and mechanical echoes of unsubstantiated accusations. 
Often, accusations propagated on the internet have no supporting evidence. The presumption of innocence does not exist in the court of public opinion. Therefore, the accused is labeled guilty online, and their reputation is irreparably damaged. The defendant’s criminal defense attorney may prove their innocence in a criminal court. However, they may suffer the consequences of digital permanence of criminal accusations for the rest of their lives.
Damaged Lives and Ruined Careers
The First Amendment provides the right to reasonable freedom of speech. This freedom does not permit people to say anything online without consequences. The First Amendment also protects statements of opinion. So, what constitutes an opinion? 
According to the Supreme Court, an opinion merits protection if it is an issue of public interest, if the statement is difficult to prove as false or true, and if it cannot be realistically interpreted as a fact about a person. 
The law supports free speech, particularly concerning public figures. Public figures include celebrities, politicians, and prominent figures who are in the limelight and who expect extra scrutiny from the public than an average person. Sometimes, people accused of a crime unintentionally become public figures. For such people, drawing the line between defamation and free speech is almost impossible.
Currently, it is easy to ruin a person’s career or damage their life through social media. A few minutes of social media updates about the accused, and a court of public opinion is set up. The defendant’s career and reputation are ruined by unsubstantiated social media claims even before the person has a fair hearing in a real court. 
 
Issues related to the First Amendment are often a barrier to defamation claims. Therefore, it is essential to consult an experienced criminal defense attorney to help decide whether any information posted online about an accused person qualifies as defamation or the First Amendment protects it.
Legally, any accused person is innocent until proven guilty. They have a right to a fair, impartial trial in a legitimate criminal justice system. The laws that uphold this fundamental right exist to protect accused persons from being convicted in the court of public opinion. Convictions by public opinion go against the principle of presumed innocence and undermine the very justice that they purport to seek.