“The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges,” as the saying goes. This idea has so permeated our idea human rights, it has even become a logical fallacy to shift the burden of proof to the “defendant” in the matter.

The presumption of innocence uses three rules in its execution. First, that the plaintiff/prosecution (accuser) has the entire burden of proof with regards to the essential facts of the case—that the accusation is valid in relation to the defendant (accused). Second, that the defendant has no burden of proof whatsoever, and can elect not to testify or present evidence, and that this decision will not be used against them. Third, that any judge or jury cannot let their own presumptions affect their ruling, and the case must be decided solely on evidence presented during trial.

However, in the legal sense, the presumption of innocence is inherently biased. Take into account what the initial idea is in fact saying: “Let’s assume that the accuser is lying.” From the start, the deck is stacked against the accuser, which some may see as perfectly reasonable. If there is sufficient proof to corroborate the accuser’s accounts, then a presumption of innocence would not matter, correct? This is also a flawed assumption, as it places responsibility on the accuser to provide evidence to validate their claims, evidence that may not always be present.

Take, for example, an accusation of rape. If a woman revokes consent during sex, but a man continues with intercourse, she has been raped. She did not record the incident, nor has any evidence outside of her claim. Should such an incident be taken to court, the man would be acquitted, based on the burden of proof being on the accuser. In spite of the fact that a crime has been committed, the man would not have to defend himself, as he has no burden of proof whatsoever. Therefore, he would be acquitted of the crime, based solely on the presumption of innocence.

Consider this: All criminals are considered innocent until proven guilty, but all victims are considered liars until proven otherwise.

How does that make you feel? Does it make you confident that justice will prevail in our legal system? Remember that the system has failed many times before; many guilty criminals have been exonerated by the clause of “reasonable doubt,” which in itself is problematic. The “reasonable person,” in such examples, is only defined by how individuals idealize rational-mindedness. In such, the standard for what is “reasonable” will differ from person to person. Using the rape example once more, someone’s idea of a “reasonable person” may be one who understands affirmative consent, while another person’s may believe that intoxicated people may freely give their consent. This may put the undereducated or people of lower income at a disadvantage, not understanding the standards of “reasonable doubt.” And, of course, there exists the judgment notwithstanding verdict, where a judge may overrule a guilty verdict if they believe the jury did not understand “reasonable doubt” to an expected level (as with Liebeck v. McDonald’s). When even the legal system acknowledges that the concept of reasonable doubt does not work, how can we expect justice to be done accordingly?

There exists the idea of mob justice, of course. Although frowned upon openly, the idea still exists within the concept of public shaming. George Zimmerman, for example, may have been acquitted of the murder of Trayvon Martin, but he has still been deemed guilty by the civilian populace, and shamed repeatedly by the media as a result. Although he may not see jail time for his crime, he will forever be known as a racist murderer, and has had his reputation completely tarnished. In some ways, this is a worse fate for him than a prison sentence, being cast out as a social pariah for the remainder of his days.

Let’s walk things back for a moment. The problems with the justice system are not limited to the presumption of innocence and the standard of reasonable doubt. There exists another issue that is much deeper—one that permeates our modern society. As you may have guessed, I’m talking about racism.

Blacks are statistically more likely to be arrested than whites. They are more likely to remain in prison awaiting trial than whites, receive sentences 10% longer than whites for the same crimes, are more likely to waive their right to trial for a reduced sentence (even when they are innocent!), and represent the largest population of inmates. Additionally, black males born after 2001 are five times more likely to receive a prison sentence than white males. By comparison, Latino males are three times more likely than whites to be imprisoned. Consider this, as well: ex-convicts are more likely to receive callbacks from employers if they are white (17% get calls back) than if they are black (only 5%). The evidence is clear: the justice system is not blind, much less colorblind.

The system privileges the wrong people. The defendants have a distinct privilege, not being required to prove themselves innocent—unless, of course, they don’t happen to be white. What can we do about these issues? Nothing simple, unfortunate to say. We would essentially have to tear down the current justice system and rebuild it in order to make it truly just.

College campuses have disciplinary hearings that our justice system can learn from. For example, they operate on a preponderance of evidence, meaning that “reasonable doubt” is not the standard of proof, in favor of “more likely than not.” Defendants are required to prove that they are innocent, instead of leaving the burden of proof on the accuser. While some may say that this is equivalent to a standard of “guilty until proven innocent,” it is not quite that. The standard of proof is on both parties, maintaining a balance between accusations and defense. Instead of one judge, or a jury of peers that could be manipulated, a committee presides over hearings, and delivers the final verdict. This is significantly closer to perfect procedural justice than our current system entails.

However, there are times where it does take mob justice to deliver justice. If our system fails to act where it should in punishing the guilty and exonerating the innocent, it is up to the people to take justice into their own hands, and do what they must in order to ensure that righteousness is delivered properly. Whether this be through the aforementioned public shaming, or through more violent means (such as riots against structural injustices and inequalities), it is the duty of our society to ensure that we achieve and maintain true social justice.