A Misunderstood and Misused Term
Let's start off appropriately.
Innocent until proven guilty is really only relevant within the court of law. So to all his supporters, please stop exclaiming Michael Jackson is innocent until proven guilty at the top of your lungs. The only people that that concerns are the judge and, more importantly, the jury.
But is innocent until proven guilty even a realistic statement? Is it even logical? I argue that based on the setup on our legal system, it is a total fallacy to use such a statement. The term innocent is an affirmative statement. To say someone is innocent, I would think, means that innocence has been proven through the submission of supportive evidence. In this respect, innocence cannot reasonably be presumed, it must be proven. Throughout a trial, the prosecution bears sole responsibility for proving its case; the defense has no obligation to show that their client, the defendant, is innocent of any crime with which he is charged, although it certainly helps if they can do so. No worthy attorney will forgo providing evidence that proves their client is not responsible for the commision of said crime simply because the prosecutors are the only side with the burden of proof.
Now understand that the verdict of the courtroom is designed to be descriptive of reality, not prescriptive. If a man is unjustifiably shot and killed by another individual, that responsible party is guilty of the crime whether or not he is convicted through due process or even arrested for his crime. If the legal presumption of innocent until proven guilty is accepted as unquestionable fact, then the entire legal process is pointless an wrong. How can someone believed to be innocent be arrested, charged, and placed on trial?
Innocent until proven guilty is really a meaningless statement. Two factual statements could easily replace the current terminology, and be more accurate, too:
1. Being arrested, charged, and placed on trial is NOT evidence of the defendants guilt and cannot be considered as such.
2. The prosecutors must prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the defendant is under no obligation to prove his innocence.