Abstract

The end of The Trial sees Josef executed, a sentence carried out before any formal judgment, showing how guilt is treated as assumed rather than proven. Accusation itself carries the weight of guilt, striking parallel to the court of public opinion, where, upon exposure, “guilt” is inevitable. In this paper, Part I examines the text of The Trial and its relation to the presumption of innocence and the court of public opinion. Part II.A discusses the development of the principle of presumption of innocence and its origins, both generally and in United States jurisprudence. Part II.B considers the modern difficulties in enforcing this principle, given the changing technologies and circumstances of daily life now in comparison to the time that this principle was enshrined. Within that discussion, Part III describes how the presumption of innocence does not exist in such a way that it protects the justice and fairness that it promised. Instead, this principle faces constant rebuke due to various government-sanctioned allowances and invasions, disproportionately affecting minority groups who are more frequently presumed guilty and subjected to harsher scrutiny. Part IV sets forth a series of reform proposals attempting to preserve the integrity of the presumption of innocence as it was once intended to function, and in doing so, prevent the criminal justice system’s deterioration into a bleak Kafka-esque reality.

Keywords

Presumption of Innocence, Trial by Media, Franz Kafka, Pretrial Publicity, Due Process Erosion, Guilt, Legal Bureaucracy