zlacker

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges.

>>scarab+(OP)
It is also the case that prosecutors need to decide both the probability of conviction, the effort needed to do so and whether likely conviction on other serious charges are sufficient for the people to feel that justice has been done.

>>scarab+(OP)
> The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.

That should be "considered innocent by the legal system". People are still free to come to their own conclusions--and act on them--even without a jury rendering a verdict.

Rather famously, for example, OJ Simpson was acquitted by a jury of murdering his wife. But most people these days would agree with the statement that he murdered his wife.

>>beezle+e1
And if the prosecution doesn't like the probability of conviction, they doubt their ability to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilt.

There can be whatever reason he wasn't convicted, it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't and presumed innocence is the legal default.

>>jcranm+I3
glove didn't fit

>>jcranm+I3
> That should be "considered innocent by the legal system"

Which is what matters when determining sentences.

> People are still free to come to their own conclusions--and act on them

People are definitely not free to act on their conclusions. That's vigilantism, what the comment above was referring to.

>>gunian+nA
had to acquit