Return to Answer

Before anything, whether someone is guilty or innocent of a crime is a legal and objective fact. Once the court decides that you are one or the other, that becomes a fact of law. Legally speaking, the person accused of a crime always has been innocent or guilty since the moment the crime happened. If a higher court overrules a lower one, then that decision is just as retroactive - and you had been whatever the highest ruling court decreed you to be from the start.

Now, since a verdict of guilt and innocence are the possible outcomes of the trial, there must be a way for the court to find out what the fact is. That is what happens in the trial itself. In this context, the sentence "innocent until proven guilty" comes in, or rather "presumed innocent until proven guilty" does. The stress on presumption here is not just semantics: it is critical because it is how to deal with someone before and during the trial, which is where someone is proven guilty.

Before anything, whether someone is guilty or innocent of a crime is an objective fact. During a trial, what is known is presented to the court, thought about, and turned into a legal fact, which is incorporated in the legal fiction of the happenings¹. Once the court has the legal fiction of the transpiring, they craft a verdict that you are innocent or guilty. The verdict becomes a fact of law. 

Legally speaking, the person accused of a crime always has been innocent or guilty since the moment the crime happened. If a higher court overrules a lower one, then that decision is just as retroactive - and you had been whatever the highest ruling court decreed you to be from the start.

Now, since a verdict of guilt and innocence are the possible outcomes of the trial, there must be a way for the court to find out what the fact is. That is what happens in the trial itself. In this context, the sentence "innocent until proven guilty" comes in, or rather "presumed innocent until proven guilty" does. The stress on presumption here is not just semantics: it is critical because it is how to deal with someone before and during the trial, which is where someone is proven guilty.

^{1 - Legal Fact is any single thing that is proven in the court. Together the legal facts make up the description of what the court thinks has transpired. That can be different from what actually happened. This can happen if things are not proven or mentioned they might be missing in the court's situational image. The totality of legal facts can be called Legal Fiction too.}

So we have a standard for when someone is guilty and when not in an orderly court trial. Today we speak of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the common law system, and that is commonly the best translation from other legal systems too.

So we have a standard for when someone is guilty and when not. This is the aim for most orderly court trials. What is beyond a doubt and how much proof was required shifted between times and systems, and in some cases, a claim alone was seen as part of the proof.

Today we speak of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the common law system, and that is commonly the best translation from other legal systems too.

In Europe, most witch hunters didn't even have the right to adjudicate anything and they were conducted only with the power of the mob. The Salem Witch Craze is better described as a mockery of trials than a court of law and was mostly political. The system was just ignored here.

During the 3rd Reich, some German courts took a simple claim by some people for all the 'evidence' they required to condemn someone. The system had failed.

In Europe, many witch hunters didn't even have the right to adjudicate anything, and their "investigations" were conducted at times backed up with the power of the mob. The Salem Witch Craze is better described as a mockery of trials than a court of law and was fueled by the ambitions of a group. The system was in many cases ignored, set aside, and in some cases where someone with the power to judge was involved, the system failed.

During the late 1930s and early 1940s, some (nazi) German courts took a simple claim by some people for all the 'evidence' they required to condemn someone, especially if the claim was treason. The system had failed.