The presumption of innocence is a foundational principle in many legal systems around the world, including Canada's. It means that when someone is accused of a crime, they are considered innocent until they are proven guilty in a court of law. This principle places the burden of proof on the prosecution, which must convince a judge or jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" of the defendant's guilt. If there is any reasonable doubt, then the defendant must be acquitted.
The presumption of innocence serves several critical functions.
1. Protection of Individual Rights: This principle protects individuals from wrongful conviction. It is based on the belief that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to imprison an innocent one.
2. Burden of Proof: It puts the responsibility on the prosecution to prove guilt, rather than on the accused to prove innocence. This upholds fairness in the legal system as the state typically has more resources than the defendant.
3. Mitigating Power Imbalance: The state, with its significant resources and powers, could be oppressive to individuals. The presumption of innocence works to balance this power.
4. Confidence in the Legal System: Upholding the principle of presumption of innocence helps maintain public confidence in the justice system. It reflects society's commitment to fairness and justice.
When a defendant is found "not guilty" in a court of law, it means that the prosecution has not been able to overcome the presumption of innocence. The defendant remains in the state they were before the trial began: presumed innocent. However, a "not guilty" verdict does not positively affirm that a person is "innocent" of the alleged crime. It simply means that their guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, "not guilty" means the legal system continues to presume them innocent, because the burden of proof for their guilt was not met. A "not guilty" verdict is not a declaration of innocence—it is a declaration that the evidence was insufficient to overturn the presumption of innocence.
This is all true.
However, there is a giant piece of the puzzle missing in this whole matter.
There hasn't been an information presented to a court by an investigative body yet.
I cant comprehend the thought process of people who think the following:
I don't know who, and I don't even know exactly of what, but he is guilty!
The people allegedly involved in this investigation haven't been named, and neither have their actions.
World Junior Team Canada team allegedly gang-raped a girl in a hotel.
It was followed by "Team Canada investigated themselves, and we found we did nothing wrong".
That resulted in a MASSIVE public outcry.
Then Hockey Canada (partially funded by the government) used Canadian taxpayer dollars to try and settle this. Canadians were livid so the government got involved with like 3rd party investigators n shit.
So then sponsors pulled out of the WJHC, and basically it ran at a massive loss, with almost no attendance.
SO fast-forward to today? Lots of that Team Canada WJHC are regular NHLers and will likely be named in a criminal suit. A lot of that team have been cleared as they weren't even there (Cale Makar, Jordan Kyrou, Carter Hart, Rob Thomas) but a bunch of NHL regulars have NOT been cleared.
I don't believe you understand the meaning of the word "likely".
It's entirely likely that not a single criminal information is brought forth in this case, unfortunately.
You're missing the civil suit part.
Hockey Canada was being sued by the girl's family/representatives on the accusation of her being raped.
Contemporaneously, she went to the police and did what we want victims to do: report wrongdoing.
At some point, she decided to stop cooperating with the police.
The police then decided not to pursue further with the investigation.
At another point, she decided to accept a monetary compensation package in exchange for not pursuing the case in civil court.
I know it can be inferred that these 2 actions are related, but it appears that she stopped cooperating with the police well before a settlement was achieved, so it doesn't appear that it was a quid-pro-quo.
What it does do, is send a message to potential perpetrators out there: if you do find yourself embroiled in a case like this, offer some money and you'll get off without legal injury.
That's the exact wrong message to send, both to victims past and future, and to society as a whole.
In the justice system, yes. Actual guilt =/= legal guilt.
Are you advocating for people to dole out punishment to people without any form of fact-checking or determination of the guilt of the people involved?
