> The presumption of innocence needs to be a two-way street, surely?
Historically, the presumption of innocence has two legs: one, the Latin "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies). This is something like the theory of knowledge rule that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
The other leg, in the western legal tradition, is that the state (and particularly the prosecution) is always the bearer of the burden of truth.
In this sense, it actually makes sense to presume that the police are "guilty," or at least that they must prove that their actions are legal and comport with the boundaries of state power.
So, in the western tradition, it is only those accused by the state of a crime who enjoy the presumption of innocence; people acting on behalf of the state do not.
Historically, the presumption of innocence has two legs: one, the Latin "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies). This is something like the theory of knowledge rule that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
The other leg, in the western legal tradition, is that the state (and particularly the prosecution) is always the bearer of the burden of truth.
In this sense, it actually makes sense to presume that the police are "guilty," or at least that they must prove that their actions are legal and comport with the boundaries of state power.
So, in the western tradition, it is only those accused by the state of a crime who enjoy the presumption of innocence; people acting on behalf of the state do not.