This is just dumb. I suppose this assumption in our courts of law is meant to protect anybody from being unfairly scapegoated or railroaded through the system. Still, the problem here is that it defies common sense. If someone is in court, that means they’ve been investigated by the police and found to have substantial evidence against them by an attorney. For us to assume that anyone going through the system is probably innocent is to suggest that everyone involved in law enforcement is incompetent or corrupt. It seems far more likely that the accused is guilty.
It’s reasonable to say that nobody should be treated as guilty until they’re convicted, but not to say that we should assume innocence. Obviously, virtually everyone who gets charged with a crime is guilty. All that means is that those professionals who defend and exercise our laws are not corrupt or incompetent, which is more than I can say for the average defendant. Perhaps this philosophy of assuming innocence explains our unfortunately abysmal conviction rate.