A coherent response requires three levels of intervention.
Moreover, forensic tools (e.g., cell-site simulators, hacking warrants) operate opaquely. The presumption of innocence requires that the accused can challenge the integrity of evidence. But when the evidence is an algorithm’s output or a proprietary tool’s analysis, meaningful challenge is often impossible. This creates a de facto reversal: the accused must prove the technology erred, rather than the state proving its reliability. presumed innocent en ligne
The Digital Presumption: Reconstructing the Principle of Presumed Innocent in Online Environments A coherent response requires three levels of intervention
The presumption of innocence, formalized in Article 11 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, serves two functions. Functionally, it allocates the burden of proof to the accuser. Symbolically, it expresses the moral priority of avoiding false convictions over punishing the guilty (Blackstone’s ratio). As legal scholar William Blackstone wrote, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." But when the evidence is an algorithm’s output
In analog systems, this presumption is enforced through gatekeepers: judges, rules of evidence, cross-examination, and public pronouncement of guilt only after conviction. The key insight is that procedure precedes punishment . No legitimate deprivation of liberty or reputation occurs without a prior adversarial process.