Innocent until proven guilty

AskMyChocolate

The Bertie Aherne complex.

Is this really the way we want to raise our children?

To instill in their minds the belief, that, if they can't prove it in a court of law then you are innocent.

I see it trotted out again and again on this forum, to the point where people actually believe it.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal definition, based on the fact that it is better that 99 guilty people go free, rather than one innocent person is locked up.

The Birmingham Six are no more guilty or innocent of the crime of which they were accused today than they were ten years ago when they were locked up.

Innocence or guilt of a crime is defined by one thing and one thing only whether you did it or not!

Eerrm,

I mean,

Discuss. :pac:

Artful_Badger

Until someone can lawfully prove you are guilty of a crime then you cannot be held accountable for that crime. Its not a definative statement that you did or didnt do something, merely enough or lack of justification to treat you as if you did.

Seems fair enough to me to have such a thing to uphold everyone's right not to be lynched based on assumptions.

bumper234

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Until someone can lawfully prove you are guilty of a crime then you cannot be held accountable for that crime. Its not a definative statement that you did or didnt do something, merely enough or lack of justification to treat you as if you did.

Seems fair enough to me to have such a thing to uphold everyone's right not to be lynched based on assumptions.

So why do people get locked up until trial?

Mint Aero

Fascinating insight OP. Tell me more of this Aherne person you speak of.

I am pie

Nah lets teach the kids to suspicious and to believe that you only have to be fair to people when the courts are involved.

Cant see a problem at all...

Artful_Badger

bumper234 wrote: »

So why do people get locked up until trial?

Thats not being held accountable for the crime though which at that point someone can only be accused of. Its making sure you stand trial for the crimes you are accused of.

awec

Depends on how you look at it, in terms of a conviction you are either proven guilty or not.

Whether not being proven guilty means you are innocent is another thing. The law of averages would suggest that guilty people must get lucky sometimes, and enough evidence may not exist to prove their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Can you really describe someone like that as innocent?

awec

bumper234 wrote: »

So why do people get locked up until trial?

People are held on remand if they are deemed to be a danger to public safety, will interfere with potential witnesses or are a flight risk.

stoneill

All Bertie is guilty of is being lucky on the horses!

Karl Stein

Best thing to do is just shoot and let God sort out who was innocent or guilty.

Skid X

The presumption of innocent principle goes back to Roman Law, and is established as a fundamental principle of law across many varied legal systems.

What on earth has it got to do Bertie Ahern?

o1s1n

awec wrote: »

Depends on how you look at it, in terms of a conviction you are either proven guilty or not.

Whether not being proven guilty means you are innocent is another thing. The law of averages would suggest that guilty people must get lucky sometimes, and enough evidence may not exist to prove their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Can you really describe someone like that as innocent?

This annoys me. Its the whole 'no smoke without fire' logic.

Best not get yourself wrongfully accused of sexual assault.

wp_rathead

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Best thing to do is just shoot and let God sort out who was innocent or guilty.

"Only Gawd can judge me boy"
*spits out tobacco*
*continues lynching*

diomed

This needs a poll with innocent and guilty options. Don't bother with evidence, or the crime. Let's vote.

bumper234

awec wrote: »

People are held on remand if they are deemed to be a danger to public safety, will interfere with potential witnesses or are a flight risk.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Thats not being held accountable for the crime though which at that point someone can only be accused of. Its making sure you stand trial for the crimes you are accused of.

I agree but if you are being held in custody until your trial (many months in some cases) then the presumption of guilt is there. I am not saying everyone should be free until trial god knows there are enough reports of criminals out on bail committing more crime I am just saying that innocent until PROVEN guilty is a myth.

folan

Aherne works in politics. He is always going to be guilty in the eyes of the public, because he cannot prove, or even offer a reasonable account of how he came into serious sums of cash during his time in the dail. Unfortunately, no body has been able to prove his guilt either.

Law does not always work, justice is not always blind, and its still the best system out there. its the only way we can make the guilty pay, and spare the innocent.

Mr.Micro

bumper234 wrote: »

So why do people get locked up until trial?

It depends on who you are.

awec

o1s1n wrote: »

This annoys me. Its the whole 'no smoke without fire' logic.

Best not get yourself wrongfully accused of sexual assault.

No it isn't, that is not at all the point I am making.

awec

bumper234 wrote: »

I agree but if you are being held in custody until your trial (many months in some cases) then the presumption of guilt is there. I am not saying everyone should be free until trial god knows there are enough reports of criminals out on bail committing more crime I am just saying that innocent until PROVEN guilty is a myth.

It's not a presumption of guilt, it's a presumption that you would try and interfere with the legal process and prevent a correct legal trial from taking place.

bumper234

awec wrote: »

It's not a presumption of guilt, it's a presumption that you would try and interfere with the legal process and prevent a correct legal trial from taking place.

Which would be a crime (albeit a different one) so the presumption of guilt is still there. As has been stated it's not a perfect system but it works 99% of the time.

Gee Bag

In Scottish courts a jury can choose from three possible verdicts
Guilty
Innocent
Not proven

The last one means we know you did it but the evidence wasn't strong enough legally to prove it.

mathie

OP is right.
Everyone should be guilty until proven innocent.

bumper234

mathie wrote: »

OP is right.
Everyone should be guilty until proven innocent.

Hmmmmmmmm would have to disagree on that one.

Gee Bag

Gee Bag wrote: »

In Scottish courts a jury can choose from three possible verdicts
Guilty
Innocent
Not proven

The last one means we know you did it but the evidence wasn't strong enough legally to prove it.

It sounds like a hellish kind of limbo. That sort of verdict could ruin a potentially innocent persons life by following them around.

The courts should decide if there's enough evidence to convict, or if there's not enough, in which case the presumption of innocence should be upheld.

mathie

mathie wrote: »

OP is right.
Everyone should be guilty until proven innocent.

So, I could accuse anyone of anything and it's up to them to prove ME wrong?

No. It's up to the accuser to prove their case. No one should be expected to prove their innocence of a crime they might know nothing about.

stoneill

Gee Bag wrote: »

In Scottish courts a jury can choose from three possible verdicts
Guilty
Innocent
Not proven

The last one means we know you did it but the evidence wasn't strong enough legally to prove it.

Not Proven here would be called "Ya Jammy c*unt"

Gee Bag

stoneill wrote: »

Not Proven here would be called "Ya Jammy c*unt"

Or if they were a politican it would guarantee re-election on the basis that they were a cute hoor.

CrazyRabbit

AskMyChocolate killed my dog. I want him arrested and imprisoned until he can prove that he didn't do it. Guilty until proven innocent!!!

McCongo

bumper234 wrote: »

So why do people get locked up until trial?

Only if they don't apply for, can't take up, or are refused bail.

bumper234

McCongo wrote: »

Only if they don't apply for, can't take up, or are refused bail.

Refused bail because? I know they may be a flight risk or may have previous but again if you are going to go on either if these reasons then there is a presumption of guilt.

Gee Bag

bumper234 wrote: »

Refused bail because? I know they may be a flight risk or may have previous but again if you are going to go on either if these reasons then there is a presumption of guilt.

Here are a few of the reasons;

• Flight risk
• Repeat offender
• Serious nature of the offence
• Potential to interfere with a witness
• Potential to destroy evidence

Sometimes basic common sense has to take precedence

bumper234

Gee Bag wrote: »

Here are a few of the reasons;

• Flight risk
• Repeat offender
• Serious nature of the offence
• Potential to interfere with a witness
• Potential to destroy evidence

Sometimes basic common sense has to take precedence

Yet so many murders/serious crimes committed by people on bail.