One more time:

People are not innocent until proven guilty.

They’re not. If they were, that would mean that every person prosecuted is innocent, which would mean that every prosecution is unjust. It would also mean that it was the proof that made them guilty, and not the facts. “He was an innocent man until the jury delivered its verdict, then suddenly (but not before then) he was a murderer.”

No. No, that’s not how it works.

If he’s guilty, his guilt was already a fact, it simply took time to get a jury finding that recognized that fact. If he’s guilty, and a jury finds him not guilty, he’s not suddenly innocent; he’s still guilty, we just don’t have a legal finding thereof. (Conversely, of course, a guilty verdict doesn’t make someone guilty, it merely establishes something that was already there … or not, if the guilty verdict is wrong, which we all know can happen.)

What we have under American law, and likewise in many other countries, is a presumption of innocence until guilt has been properly proven. That is to say, you’re not convicted simply upon being accused, certainly not without having a trial.

These things come in increments. People speak of Mosaic law — “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” — as harsh and primitive. And it is: NOW. At the time, it was an important forward step, putting a strict limit on escalations of revenge killings that turned into centuries-long feuds (which still continue in the Middle East). “Look, I know the guy hurt you, and I know you want justice, but this is what justice amounts to: if he put out your eye, you can’t kill him, you can only take his eye in retaliation. Go beyond that and you’re the outlaw, and we’ll be coming for you.” By the same token, there was an important moment in Western culture, many centuries later, when the law had liberalized to the point where an accused person was allowed to present a defense. He was, in other words, permitted to make an attempt at proving his innocence. This was a stunning expansion of individual rights … at the time.

Now, the onus is on the state to prove guilt. And well that it should be so.

But he’s not — I say again, not — innocent until proven guilty; we just treat him so, because that’s how civilized people behave. And intelligent people recognize the distinction between presumed innocent and actually innocent.

Words mean things. And some differences truly do make a difference.