Could the Presumption of Innocence Protect the Guilty?
- Patrick Tomlin
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
At criminal trial, we demand that those accused of criminal wrongdoing be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. What are the moral and/or political grounds of this demand? One popular and natural answer to this question focuses on the moral badness or wrongness of convicting and punishing innocent persons, which I call the direct moral grounding. In this essay, I suggest that this direct moral grounding, if accepted, may well have important ramifications for other areas of the criminal justice process, and in particular those parts in which we (through our legislatures and judges) decide how much punishment to distribute to guilty persons. If, as the direct moral grounding suggests, we should prefer under-punishment to over-punishment under conditions of uncertainty, due to the moral seriousness of errors which inappropriately punish persons, then we should also prefer erring on the side of under-punishment when considering how much to punish those who may justly be punished. Some objections to this line of thinking are considered.
- Alexander, L. (1983). Retributivism and the inadvertent punishment of the innocent. Law and Philosophy, 2, 233–246. CrossRef
- Ashworth, A. (2000). Is the criminal law a lost cause? Law Quarterly Review, 116, 225–256.
- Ashworth, A. (2006). Principles of criminal law (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Blackstone, W. (1836). Commentaries on the laws of England (19th ed., Vol. 4). London: S. Sweet.
- Bring, J., & Aitken, C. (1997). Burden of proof and estimation of drug quantities under the federal sentencing guidelines. Cardozo Law Review, 18, 1987–1999.
- Colyvan, M., Regan, H. M., & Ferson, S. (2001). Is it a crime to belong to a reference class? Journal of Political Philosophy, 9, 168–181. CrossRef
- Duff, R. A. (2005). Strict liability, legal presumptions, and the presumption of innocence. In A. P. Simester (Ed.), Appraising strict liability (pp. 125–149). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Hart, H. L. A. (1959–1960). Prolegomenon to the principles of punishment. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 60, 1–26.
- Husak, D. (2008). Overcriminalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Laudan, L. (2011). The rules of trial, political morality, and the costs of error: Or, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt doing more harm than good? In L. Green & B. Leiter (Eds.), Oxford studies in philosophy of law (Vol. 1, pp. 195–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Rawls, J. (2001). Two concepts of rules. In J. Rawls (Ed.), Collected papers (pp. 20–46). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Roberts, P. (2005). Strict liability and the presumption of innocence: An exposé of functionalist assumptions. In A. P. Simester (Ed.), Appraising strict liability (pp. 151–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Roebuck, G., & Wood, D. (2011). A retributive argument against punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 5, 73–86. CrossRef
- Simester, A. P., & Sullivan, G. R. (2003). Criminal law: Theory and doctrine (2nd ed.). Oxford: Hart.
- Tadros, V. (2007). Rethinking the presumption of innocence. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 1, 193–213. CrossRef
- Tadros, V. (2011). The ends of harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Tadros, V., & Tierney, S. (2004). The presumption of innocence and the human rights act. Modern Law Review, 67, 402–434. CrossRef
- Tomlin, P. (forthcoming). Extending the golden thread? Criminalisation and the presumption of innocence. Journal of Political Philosophy. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2011.00411.x.
- Tribe, L. (1970). An ounce of detention: preventive justice in the world of John Mitchell. Virginia Law Review, 56, 371–407. CrossRef
- Wellman, C. H. (2012). The rights forfeiture theory of punishment. Ethics, 122, 371–393. CrossRef
- Could the Presumption of Innocence Protect the Guilty?
Criminal Law and Philosophy
Volume 8, Issue 2 , pp 431-447
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Presumption of innocence
- Standard of proof
- Industry Sectors
- Patrick Tomlin (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AA, UK