In principle. It doesn't always work out that way in reality for everyone. Poor people are more likely to feel like it is guilty till proven innocent because they cannot hire the best lawyers while for many rich folks who can hire the best lawyers the principle works almost too well. I have no doubt that OJ Simpson probably killed his wife and Mr. Goldman but Johnnie Cochran was a darn good lawyer.<br />
If you have to hire a public defender you are probably doomed even if you didn't do it. Spend some money on a good lawyer if you can.
I agree completly, it does now seem as the question should be ' guilty untill you prove your innocent' !
I'm glad I started a good dialogue here. :)
Most certainly; a person's guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt - not presumed from the beginning.
In america, as soon as you are charged with something, the mob otherwise known as society, sets their claws into you, ripping you apart, threatening your life, insulting everything about you. But until all the facts are on the table, until everything is debated, until both sides present their evidence, you cannot be guiilty before the verdict. It doesn't matter who is alleging anything - if there is not solid evidence to back it up, it's mere speculation, and to convict on mere assumptions is a very dangerous thing. Even when people have been declared guilty and sentenced and behind bars, there are cases where new evidence has been presented to vindicate them. Justice should never be so quick and shift that it fails to without a reasonable doubt show that you are either 100% guilty or 100% innocent; there can be no doubts, it's either you are guilty or you have been found to be not guilty. If you are ssaid to have done something, there must be facts to back it up completely, or its mere heresay. If the pieces don't fit, you don't have a case. That's why it pays for everyone to be clear and concise in their investigations and speaking to suspects, witnesses, and other people.
Not guilty until proven guilty.
Sure... the concept anyway. But it's troubling when more and more you see people on TV being released after a bunch of years for things they didn't do. "Proven" apparently means who was the better lawyer. ;/
I prefer "innocent unless proven guilty."
Absolutely. Beats the alternative.
Yes but does that ever happen?
Yes but in some cases and in some corrupt country's where the police force is corrupt your often guilty long before you get to court
That depends on the situation.<br />
My sub is guilty until proven innocent :-D
Yes... Its the law.
Well, yeah. How could it be otherwise?
thats a lie
Yes. Take Micky, Joan and Marc.<br />
Micky took Joan's sweater cause he thaught it was his', Joan is a tall girl. <br />
Joan come's home and accuses marc of taking the sweater but Marc didn't do it. <br />
Marc would be guilty untill they find the real culprit(Micky) or Joan could not blame anyone untill she ask's everyone about her sweater before she comes to a conclusion.
I think everyone is innocent and just misunderstood or been in either an accident that they caused or an accident they didn't cause, if they are seen as bad it just means they are in their head and it's like how a baby crys and wakes the mother, the criminal wants a kiss and to be comforted but NO we punish, I disagree.
yes and no, especially if its obvious like video evidence... it makes no since when its obvious, actually kinda ****** me off!