Final answer:
A presumption against retrospectivity means new laws are generally not applied to past actions, ensuring legal certainty. The principle of stare decisis contributes to this consistency by holding on to legal precedents, while the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right that can be challenged by public opinion.
Step-by-step explanation:
The term presumption refers to a legal inference or assumption that a fact is true until the presumption is rebutted by evidence to the contrary. In the context of retrospectivity, a presumption against retrospectivity means that, generally, new laws do not affect acts that occurred or conditions that were created before the new law came into effect. The principle allows individuals and entities to have a sense of certainty and predictability regarding the law's application. In the legal system, the stare decisis principle, which translates to "let the decision stand," contributes to this predictability by maintaining consistency through adherence to legal precedents set in previous judicial decisions. In particular, the presumption of innocence upholds the idea that one is considered innocent until proven guilty, a cornerstone of criminal justice systems in democratic societies. However, it is essential to recognize that this presumption is not absolute and may be challenged under certain circumstances when significantly negative publicity can influence public perception of the accused. Additionally, retrospective voting behavior in political sciences exhibits a different aspect of retrospectivity, where voters judge candidates based on past actions rather than future promises or projected capabilities. In conclusion, our understanding of presumption in various contexts, whether legal or societal, indicates the complex interplay between the past, present, and the decision-making processes that govern them.