Advertisement

Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 431–447 | Cite as

Could the Presumption of Innocence Protect the Guilty?

  • Patrick Tomlin
Original Paper
  • 728 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Presumption of innocence Standard of proof Sentencing Tariff-setting 

Notes

Acknowledgments

My interest in the presumption of innocence, and its scope and grounds, stems from my involvement with the AHRC-funded Preventive Justice project (ID: AH/H015655/1), which I worked on at the University of Oxford with Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner. I am grateful to the AHRC for funding the project, and to Andrew and Lucia for help, encouragement, support and discussion. This paper follows on from my previous paper ‘Extending the Golden Thread?’, and so I am (again) grateful to all those to whom I was grateful in that paper. The present paper has further benefitted from discussion at the workshop in Aberdeen for which it was written and I would like to thank all the participants for helpful questions and comments, and Antony Duff, Liz Campbell and James Chalmers for organising the event. I am especially grateful to Duff for helpful written comments.

References

  1. Alexander, L. (1983). Retributivism and the inadvertent punishment of the innocent. Law and Philosophy, 2, 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashworth, A. (2000). Is the criminal law a lost cause? Law Quarterly Review, 116, 225–256.Google Scholar
  3. Ashworth, A. (2006). Principles of criminal law (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blackstone, W. (1836). Commentaries on the laws of England (19th ed., Vol. 4). London: S. Sweet.Google Scholar
  5. Bring, J., & Aitken, C. (1997). Burden of proof and estimation of drug quantities under the federal sentencing guidelines. Cardozo Law Review, 18, 1987–1999.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hart, H. L. A. (1959–1960). Prolegomenon to the principles of punishment. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 60, 1–26.Google Scholar
  9. Husak, D. (2008). Overcriminalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rawls, J. (2001). Two concepts of rules. In J. Rawls (Ed.), Collected papers (pp. 20–46). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Roebuck, G., & Wood, D. (2011). A retributive argument against punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 5, 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Simester, A. P., & Sullivan, G. R. (2003). Criminal law: Theory and doctrine (2nd ed.). Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  15. Tadros, V. (2007). Rethinking the presumption of innocence. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 1, 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tadros, V. (2011). The ends of harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Tadros, V., & Tierney, S. (2004). The presumption of innocence and the human rights act. Modern Law Review, 67, 402–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.
  19. Tribe, L. (1970). An ounce of detention: preventive justice in the world of John Mitchell. Virginia Law Review, 56, 371–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wellman, C. H. (2012). The rights forfeiture theory of punishment. Ethics, 122, 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and International RelationsUniversity of ReadingWhiteknights, ReadingUK

Personalised recommendations