It is not always easy to understand the presumption of innocence, beyond accepting it generically. For many it is that song heard many times without knowing what the lyrics say. Why should a terrorist, rapist or other type of execrable person have rights; he must be arrested following a careful liturgy; Should he remain, if possible, on the street and should be judged by exquisitely impartial judges? Why treat people who plant bombs to kill or rape children as if they were valuable ancient paintings?
One of the answers changes the question. Rights are not designed to protect the guilty, but the innocent. Guarantee processes, laws and defense lawyers do not protect the abuser and the murderer, but rather the innocent accused of abuse or murder. We protect those who seem guilty and are not. Semiotics is insufficient, we prioritize not making mistakes even if some culprits escape justice.
Taking care of the most disgusting accused is then logical and necessary. It is also important to protect the partially innocent, those who are guilty of robbery but innocent of homicide. Years and circumstances teach that many times things are not what they seem: events often become complicated to end up clear as mud. Let's remember that Finagle's law affects us all from time to time: something that can go wrong will go wrong at the worst time. Not having done anything should be the magic ring that generates a protective screen and it is the accusation that must prove guilt.
Let us also remember that we do not condemn execrable people, but execrable acts. For this reason, the journalistic information that comes from El Salvador, of massive arrests without procedure, generates ethical concern in some commentators: it is understandable to want to eradicate crime, but what happens to the innocent people imprisoned? Another thing is that somewhere there is a state of anarchy or war and the rule of law is incapable of being able to act with the law of Criminal Procedure.
The practical costs of the presumption of innocence mean that it is not applied (or little applied) in many areas such as administrative, labor and tax law; in states of emergency or on the Ukrainian front. It makes sense, managing the Treasury must be done efficiently and the context is crucial: being accused of skipping a VAT is not the same as being accused of strangling a retiree.
Another very different area is that of politics. Here also the presumption of innocence in terms of criminality must be respected. It is not fair to judge a political leader for being accused, investigated or charged. Another thing is the assessment of actions and facts, pending trial or not, carried out by former leaders in Spain, by presidential candidates or by the god of thunder himself. It is fair and appropriate that in democracy the news is judged politically by citizens but remembering the possible innocent.
When giving political opinions we must remember that intuition is not a good investigative judge and that evaluating a book only by its title and the name of the author generates many mistakes. That is why we must continue doing what we all always do: use reliable sources; identify the facts soberly; evaluate events impartially; vote rationally, and not feed pre-established discourses.
