“Innocent until proven guilty” is such a USA justice default, we generally don’t give it a 2nd thought. The burden of proof rests on the accuser and not the accused (a theory on solid ground). Does it always work out this way in practice? Absolutely not. With DNA evidence, the frequency is increasing where we see the gut-punch that justice wasn’t served, conversely injustice was served.

Recently there was a case in Arkansas where a person given the Death Penalty in 2017 was (essentially) acquitted of committing the murder (four years too late). Possibly this is the most egregious example of how practice is at odds with theory.

Even when we wince when the “innocent until proven guilty” system fails us, wouldn’t it be astronomically worse (wrongful convictions) if the default was “guilty until proven innocent”. Certainly YES, wrongful convictions would be ten-fold or hundred-fold or thousand-fold more prevalent.

I feel we are witnessing the media (and/or medium) throwing a monkey wrench into our better-than-the-alternative “innocent until proven guilty” system. There’s a relatively insignificant situation being played out now that leads me to float this. A famous horse trainer who won the Kentucky Derby earlier this month is dealing with a banned medication found in a post-race lab analysis (from the winning horse). It got off to a “guilty until proven innocent” story and conversation. It might be righting itself but the initial thrust was if it looks bad it must be bad. We must hit the pause button before rushing to judgement, but I’m increasingly wondering if folks brains are even wired with a pause button. Let’s keep the long-standing default that our country was founded on (innocent until proven otherwise).