|
A legal "presumption" is not some kind of mental state.
A presumption merely sets the state of play at the outset of a trial, and establishes who has the burden of proof.
There are all sorts of presumptions in law. For example, in a patent infringement trial, an issued patent is presumed valid. All that means is that the patent owner does not need to prove the validity of the patent. The defendant can attack validity, but must do so by clear and convincing evidence.
The presumption of innocence in criminal trials is not some kind of moral prescription about how any member of the general public is required to think.
If I walk into your house and shoot you, you do not have to sit there and think, "Gosh, I suppose he is innocent until proven guilty."
That's just utter nonsense. Into a criminal courtroom will walk a prosecutor, and a bunch of witnesses, NONE of whom think the defendant is innocent. The prosecutor is not there to solve some kind of mystery. He or she is there to prove the defendant is guilty, and the prosecutor believes there is a high likelihood that the defendant will be found guilty. Otherwise, we wouldn't have trials at all.
|