Because although your innocent until proven guilty, the mentality is that your guilty until proven innocent.
To make sure you don't run off, or do something to hide the evidence of the crime.
Good question, I'll have to ask the judge that when i'm standing in court.
It's a legal term, and that's it. You are considered innocent, but treated as though guilty. ON the papers, you are found innocent, but in the "eyes" of the justice system, they don't know if you are or not, so they will lock you up and hold you until you can prove you are innocent.
They only have one deed to do, and that's find you guilty. They aren't there to help you find out if you are innocent, they will provide you with counsel, but that counsel will in no way, shape or form dig into the case at hand with the same eye of scrutiny as the prosecution.
This is because the prosecution is a job promotion from public defense.
The public defender is there because they are working for the system, not the public.
IF you grew up in the 80s and 90s and were a partier and had your fill of fun, you likely know personally about how you can end up cuffed, read your rights and in jail for days, weeks, even months in some cases before you find your innocence being substantiated by the courts.
Then you are free to leave and try to recover what's left of your material life.
Many go to jail, and get out and find that 10, 20, even 30 years of hard work and savings and life is down the drain.
WHY? Because even though you were found innocent, they actually did everything they could to prove you guilty so as to feed their machine and keep it going.
That's life and the justice system. And although you are damned if caught lying, they are allowed to lie to condemn you, even if they know you are innocent!!!
No-one would charge a person who they feel is *not* guilty; that's why some trials take ages to get into Court. So, to make sure the alleged person doesn't leave the country *and* for the alleged safety of others ... they keep them in remand until the Court case is over. Is that such a bad thing for the majority of those who are only short of actually being *proved* to be guilty? The Law is not perfect, no-one would say that it is. But isn't it better to have an alleged rapist locked in a cell *if* the case is strong enough to pull in a conviction? Or would it be better that he be let loose for a long period of time until his case is up in Court?
Just a thought
Locked up is one thing, being denied the ability to freely prove your innocence and cut down jail time and the costs of pre trial lockups that account for 70 percent or so of incarcerations is another.
You should be in a whole other set of confines, where you have at your disposal at least what the free public has access to, to prove your innocence which is usually done with ONE pretrial in most cases.
This is a multi billion dollar scam.
What I'm saying is, it's simple, don't toss the accused into the same sort of protocol the gen pop is in, who are convicted and serving time.
The pre convicted should be treated differently and held in a whole other type of "incarceration" so that they can prove their innocence.
This also can have several levels to it.
The prosecutorial aspect of the judicial system has many levels.
The defense is one level. That level is on the same floor as the convicted.
Until you are actually told that you will be charged with a crime, the cops have 72 hours holding you in jail to consider to charge you or not, to the district attorney, or a nite judge.
Calculated Risk, you wouldn't be picked up if there wasn't some chance you were at fault.
Due process of law? They merely mean they have to prove your guilt, or innocence. They can't do that if you can't be questioned. The fact you are jailed is part of the process by which they seek to process justice. It is a little crazy, but that is why you have investigating magistrates and in america bail bondsmen. Industry!
Depends on the charges in the accusatory instrument and if you can make bail instead in order to guarantee your return to court. There is a famous case where a judge held a drug dealer on 1 million bail because he was deemed a flight risk and right there in the court room the dealer whips out a brief case and puts 1 mil in cash on the table and walked out. His lawyers appealed the amount and the Appellate Division reversed the lower cout saying it was cruel and unusual punishment. By then the dealer was long gone- 1 million was nothing to him and the lower court had wanted more
so they can water-board a confession out of you.
Gotta start somewhere.
better safe than sorry?!
In The United States "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to jurors. You and I are not barred from believing a person is guilty unless and until we or on the jury hearing the case.
Where they sure don't treat you as though you are innocent!
Really good question.
Depends on a lot of things - including what country you are in
In the UK if you are arrested for a crime that usually means the polcie already have evidence indicating your guilt. Holding you in custordy makes sure you wont run away, and are available to answer further questuions that may prove your guilt or innocence. If they find that the weight of evdience tends to prove your guilt you will be charged. Then there is decision as to whether to release you on bail - or in soem circumstances to hold you in custody until the trial. [ You will be held in custody for terrorist offences, or other reasons eg you may run away, interfere with witnesses etc].
In the UK "on remand" (ie in jail but not found guilty by court apparently you keep your own clothes and the prison reguime is softer than for those found guilty.
So you are innoccent until proved guilty. But if you are being held in prison the legal system thinks there is enough proof of your uilt to achieve a conviction. Nevertheless - until formally found guilty you are still separated from the real custody system.
Aint google wonderful
Eeeerrrm no not quite, if you are arrested it means you are under suspicion of committing an offence. The Police will have 24 hours to decide to charge you or release you. If charged you will be brought before a court of first instance (a Magistrates Court) and formally charged with the offence as soon as possible, questions of bail, remand etc are resolved at this stage. The question of release or the terms of the bail will depend on the severity of the offence , the character of the defendant, the danger to the public, witnesses or even to the defendant will all be taken into consideration.
That will be £400 for the advice!!!! (Cheques payable to Waffle, Bojit and Run, Sols)
Thanks for that - cheque is in the post
PS if I need a solicitor can I call you ?
All the answers given are pathetic. You guys obviously don't know jack $hit, especially you Medusalll.
It is a step process that keeps money pouring into the legal system in every direction. Arrested? Bail. Pay, show up, then get it back. Oh you don't have $20,000.00? Well, a bondsman will cover it for a 10% fee which you DO NOT get back. As long as someone puts their HOUSE as collateral for the 20 grand. Now it's lawyer up. "I can help you, I can beat this charge"....for $6500.00 Oh well I have to answer a motion to strike, I need another $2000.00. They have made sure you tasted jail and you DO NOT want to go back so....you will sell your soul to get money to pay the attorney to keep you out of jail. "I've worked with this DA, piece of cake" he says. Since the whole goal of the court system is to make money, they need to keep the calendar clear of cases, so they offer a "deal". They will let you go on the dope charge and just go with the suspended license charge if you plead guilty and pay a @2500.00 fine and a $75.00 per month fee for the 3 years you are on probation. "But that was my heart medication not dope" you say. "ya well they never really clarified that and look no jail time just TAKE THE DEAL." Did I forget the "arraignment"? A little legal move they do on you to get you to acquiesce to their game or court, which is illegal if you don't agree to it at the "arraignment" Wake up people. The judge rules from the bench( Bench is Latin for bank) Where do you find banks? On the sides of rivers directing current/currency get it? Of course if you are treasury secretary Hank Paulson (Secretary under Bush)and you steal billions and give it to your `criminal friends on Wall Street, receive a $200 million dollar commission for stealing it for them....then these rules don't apply. In that case, you are suspended from the SEC for 2 years. Welcome to Amerika.