Our founding fathers understood a number of things about criminal accusations.  It’s difficult if not impossible to prove a negative.  It’s better to free a guilty man than to punish an innocent one.  Government cannot be trusted or supported if it doesn’t respect the rights of the accused.  They gave us a Constitution to protect our rights and provide confidence to the court system.

Because it is nearly impossible to prove a negative the accused is never required to prove his innocence.  To do so would require the accused to prove he did not do something.  The burden of proof rests with the prosecution who must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Civil courts decide cases based on the preponderance of evidence.  This means that the plaintiff and defendant both submit evidence and the one with the greatest amount of credible evidence wins.  Under these conditions it would be nearly impossible for a person to be found innocent of a crime.  Criminal cases involve a great deal of physical and circumstantial evidence that may apply to the defendant but might also apply to others.  The defendant is unlikely to find much evidence to prove their innocence with the exception of an alibi.  This places the defendant at a distinct disadvantage, which is why criminal cases should not be tried in civil courts.  Constitutionally civil courts have no jurisdiction over criminal activity but precedent has been set to try these cases civilly under the concept of wrongful activity.  (Ex. wrongful death)

Criminal courts require that a person be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The classic description of this is the Reasonable Man Test.  Simply stated: is there sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable person that the accused is the only person who could have committed the crime.  Standing against this evidence is the credibility of the witnesses, the validity of physical evidence and the actions of investigators.  The defense may show improper collection or failure to maintain a chain of custody to prevent contamination contaminates the evidence.  They can show that the evidence could be applied to another viable suspect.  They can show prejudiced or abusive activity by the prosecution or investigators, which invalidates the evidence by showing the prosecution or investigators, could contaminate the evidence.  They can show intentional violation of the suspect’s rights by the prosecution or law enforcement.  And, of course, they have other options as well.

The prosecution must show that the evidence applies only to the accused.  They must show that there is no reasonable theory to show another suspect did the crime.  They must show the actions of the prosecution and investigators were above reproach and that they have taken all reasonable actions to ensure they are prosecuting the right person.  Finally they must show that what the accused did was a criminal act which undermines the public interest.

It becomes obvious that the prosecution must work very hard in order to prove guilt while the accused needs only to show it is reasonable to believe someone else might have committed the crime.  This makes it difficult to convict a suspect and can result in the guilty going free but it minimizes the possibility of punishing an innocent man.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the fact that a person is found “not guilty” does not mean that you have to change your opinion if you disagree.  It is expected that the victims of crime and the people who love them will desire vengeance for the wrong done to them.  It is unreasonable to expect anything else.  This privilege does not extend to elected representatives who are not directly tied to the victims.

The constitution establishes our view of criminal justice in a manner that we express as “innocent until proven guilty.”  An individual who is found “not guilty” is, in fact, innocent in the eyes of the law and the constitution.  Those who are placed in a position of public trust are expected to uphold the constitution and the law.  As such, at least publicly, they must acknowledge the innocence of those found “not guilty” in a criminal court.  If they cannot do so then they cannot be trusted with your freedoms.  Failure to acknowledge the decision of the court as final shows a predisposition to ignore our system of justice based on personal prejudice or opinion.

Could you, honestly, trust a congressman, senator, president, judge, sheriff or any other official who did not accept this constitutional concept?