Law And Order

Presumption of innocence, taken to an extreme, can be every bit as bad as presumption of guilt. I was talking to a friend about how the law works where he is, and I was told that the police basically brought the presumption of innocence to the extreme. For them, a crime only occurrs if it succeeds. As such, someone who attempts to hold up the gas station but fails to do so is deemed innocent of the crime, and will have no penalties resulting from the attempt.

I think it's pretty obvious how such a system is totally broken. If someone tries to break into your home, but fails because you beat the crap out of them, you may well be in for an assault charge even as the would-be burglar walks free. That seems to be major suckage to me. Of course, the converse is just as bad, when one can be charged for a crime purely on circumstantial evidence that leaves quite some doubt.

It seems that while presumption of innocence is something that will keep innocents from being wrongfully convicted, it may also result in innocents being made victims of crimes from being too easy on the would-be criminals. Ultimately, there has to be a balance between the two. Unfortunately, as it tends to be with human systems, it is rather difficult to find that delicate balance point