Do you believe in innocent until proven guilty? (+poll)

[Lonyo]

There are issues where actiona has been taken, and it has been up to the defendant to prove they are innocent, not up to the accusor to prove they are guilty.

Do you people believe that it should be guilt that is proved, and people should be presumed innocent of charges until they are proved, or are people guilty and have to prove their own innocence, or are there situations where innocent until proven guilty shouldn't apply?

If you believe exceptions should be made, please state why.

I DO NOT want a flame thread, just people oppinions on innocent until proven guilty, and why exceptions may be made in certain cases. (but I expect that it'll end up being a flame fest)

(I did a search for innocent and guilt, but nothing similar came up, so I hope this isn't a repost).

 

[alchemize]

Is this a trick question?

 

[Lonyo]

Well, it's partly inspired by a post I read saying Bush told Saddam to show he didn't have any WMD's.

I'm not claiming Bush did this, I am saying that it's the message put forward by the poster, saying that in the case of Saddam, he should have proved his own innocence, and since he didn't, Bush went to war.

I'm expecting at least 1 Guilty/exceptional circumstance from that particular poster.

 

[MovingTarget]

Well, someone is going to eventually say it, so I may as well. Iraq admitted to having banned weapons after the first Gulf war. Iraq admitted its own guilt. Since he did have them, he shouldve been able to easily prove to the UN Inspectors that he actually destroyed the ones he had. There were UN resolutions that stated this fact, and those same resolutions put the burden of Iraq to show proof. Please dont flame me for posting this. Its just some food for thought to get some discussion regarding Lonyo's last post. I'm not trying to state my opinion here. Please, lets keep this little tangent civil!!!...we all have seen the new thread that got the sticky here. We dont need anymore of the nonsense.
Oh, and I did vote that youre innocent until proven guilty. I thought that poll was only applying to citizens of countries, not to countries as a whole as in the Iraq example.

 

[BOBDN]

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept which must be applied to everyone and every nation otherwise we are all in jeopardy of being found guilty by any person or nation more powerful than us.

Presumed innocence is the cornerstone of justice. It protects the weak as well as the strong. But more so it protects the weak from the strong.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Innocent until proven to have insufficient retainer for a good lawyer.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Innocent until OJ's lawyers created the fiasco that allowed a murder to escape punishment.

 

[kaizersose]

it has to be upheld...only in domestic law. this does not apply to diplomacy or international relations--those functions are completley different dynamics that our legal system.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Well, it's partly inspired by a post I read saying Bush told Saddam to show he didn't have any WMD's.

I'm not claiming Bush did this, I am saying that it's the message put forward by the poster, saying that in the case of Saddam, he should have proved his own innocence, and since he didn't, Bush went to war.

I'm expecting at least 1 Guilty/exceptional circumstance from that particular poster.

Me? or XZeroII? or am I way off base?

Iraq isn't a innocent until proven guilty case as it sat before this war. It already was proven guilty and was given a set of guidlines to follow which included destroying/documenting WMDs.

Innocent until proven guilty - I can't think of any exceptions. The problem is "who is the arbitor of guilt?"

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Well, it's partly inspired by a post I read saying Bush told Saddam to show he didn't have any WMD's.

I'm not claiming Bush did this, I am saying that it's the message put forward by the poster, saying that in the case of Saddam, he should have proved his own innocence, and since he didn't, Bush went to war.

I'm expecting at least 1 Guilty/exceptional circumstance from that particular poster.

Me? or XZeroII? or am I way off base?

Iraq isn't a innocent until proven guilty case as it sat before this war. It already was proven guilty and was given a set of guidlines to follow which included destroying/documenting WMDs.

Innocent until proven guilty - I can't think of any exceptions. The problem is "who is the arbitor of guilt?"

CkG

It's a shame that right off the bat of this question and Poll people start with the Iraq and Bush crap.

"Innocent until proven guilty - I can't think of any exceptions. "

There are situations becoming "authorized" in this Country by a host of new means where this due process is getting reversed or thrown out altogether such as the Patriot Act I and II and giving private Third Parties FBI powers.

 

[friedpie]

Innocent until proven guilty is really a standard for juries. The jury has to believe in a defendant's innocence until proven otherwise for obvious reasons. The very fact that a person was arrested and is on trial by nature suggests guilt so the jury has to believe innocence first.

As a citizen sitting at home watching a trial on tv or reading about it in the papers, I have no such obligation as to one's innocence. I can believe someone guilty until proven otherwise in a court of law. Even after a jury has acquitted someone I can still believe in their guilt. See OJ Simpson.

The burden of proof is overwhelmingly on the prosecution. They usually have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The system was designed so that guilty men would go free rather than an innocent man going to jail.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Well, it's partly inspired by a post I read saying Bush told Saddam to show he didn't have any WMD's.

I'm not claiming Bush did this, I am saying that it's the message put forward by the poster, saying that in the case of Saddam, he should have proved his own innocence, and since he didn't, Bush went to war.

I'm expecting at least 1 Guilty/exceptional circumstance from that particular poster.

Me? or XZeroII? or am I way off base?

Iraq isn't a innocent until proven guilty case as it sat before this war. It already was proven guilty and was given a set of guidlines to follow which included destroying/documenting WMDs.

Innocent until proven guilty - I can't think of any exceptions. The problem is "who is the arbitor of guilt?"

CkG

It's a shame that right off the bat of this question and Poll people start with the Iraq and Bush crap.

"Innocent until proven guilty - I can't think of any exceptions. "

There are situations becoming "authorized" in this Country by a host of new means where this due process is getting reversed or thrown out altogether such as the Patriot Act I and II and giving private Third Parties FBI powers.

I know Dave Lonyo put the context of Iraq out there and I commented on it not being one such case. I fully agree with "innocent until proven guilty" as it has broader implications than some think.

CkG

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: friedpie
Innocent until proven guilty is really a standard for juries. The jury has to believe in a defendant's innocence until proven otherwise for obvious reasons. The very fact that a person was arrested and is on trial by nature suggests guilt so the jury has to believe innocence first.

As a citizen sitting at home watching a trial on tv or reading about it in the papers, I have no such obligation as to one's innocence. I can believe someone guilty until proven otherwise in a court of law. Even after a jury has acquitted someone I can still believe in their guilt. See OJ Simpson.

The burden of proof is overwhelmingly on the prosecution. They usually have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The system was designed so that guilty men would go free rather than an innocent man going to jail.

Good Post. I believe you are correct in your assessment on how our legal system was designed. And dmcowen, the Iraq subject was just a tangent to the origional poll that was bound to come up eventually. It was whether or not "innocent until proven guilty" applied to nations and international affairs. Somewhere between what friedpie said and kaizersose said is where I lie on the issue, in addition to my earlier post. It was a perfectly legitimate question that may not only apply to Iraq. Fortunately, it has not degenerated into a flamefest. It has gone quite well. You make a good point about how quickly it started though. I also agree with you about the Patriot acts. They are a threat to the "innocent until proven guilty" system that we have employed throughout our history. They need to go.

 

[Linflas]

Innocent until proven guilty, but there can be exceptiong (please post why you think this)

I am one of the 2 so far that picked this one for the reasons so eloquently explained by friedpie. If I witness someone take a gun out and point it at a random bystander and shoot them I will obviously think they are guilty until and unless I am presented with overwhelming evidence that there was some other mitigating action I am unaware of that caused that response. On the otherhand if I am on jury duty it is my civic duty to set aside any feelings and prejudices I might have regarding guilt and innocence and judge someone solely by the evidence presented in court with the assumption that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Well, it's partly inspired by a post I read saying Bush told Saddam to show he didn't have any WMD's.

I'm not claiming Bush did this, I am saying that it's the message put forward by the poster, saying that in the case of Saddam, he should have proved his own innocence, and since he didn't, Bush went to war.

I'm expecting at least 1 Guilty/exceptional circumstance from that particular poster.

Me? or XZeroII? or am I way off base?

Iraq isn't a innocent until proven guilty case as it sat before this war. It already was proven guilty and was given a set of guidlines to follow which included destroying/documenting WMDs.

Innocent until proven guilty - I can't think of any exceptions. The problem is "who is the arbitor of guilt?"

CkG

It's a shame that right off the bat of this question and Poll people start with the Iraq and Bush crap.

"Innocent until proven guilty - I can't think of any exceptions. "

There are situations becoming "authorized" in this Country by a host of new means where this due process is getting reversed or thrown out altogether such as the Patriot Act I and II and giving private Third Parties FBI powers.

I know Dave Lonyo put the context of Iraq out there and I commented on it not being one such case. I fully agree with "innocent until proven guilty" as it has broader implications than some think.

CkG

I wasn't directing at you CKG or Lonyo, I just out of habit clicked quote on the bunch of usual Irag bashing text I saw. Itry not to direct anything persoanlly at anyone and ignore the Irag/Bush/French bashings. The ones constantly doing that are trashing the entire Forum as a whole but of enough people ignore them they will grow tired and blow away like the dust that they are.

 

[XZeroII]

Innocent until proven guilty in all situations. Read above for the Iraq explanation. MovingTarget said it pretty well.

 

[Martin]

This is a good thread to ask: What happened to that 'dirty' bomber? I remember there was some controversy over him being detained and not charged. What happened to the guy?

 

[Martin]

after a quick search, it seems nothing has changed.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html

So I wonder, with such an overwhelming majority supporting the "innocent until proven guilty" view, why is this allowed to go on?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Innocent until proven guilty, but there can be exceptiong (please post why you think this)

I am one of the 2 so far that picked this one for the reasons so eloquently explained by friedpie. If I witness someone take a gun out and point it at a random bystander and shoot them I will obviously think they are guilty until and unless I am presented with overwhelming evidence that there was some other mitigating action I am unaware of that caused that response. On the otherhand if I am on jury duty it is my civic duty to set aside any feelings and prejudices I might have regarding guilt and innocence and judge someone solely by the evidence presented in court with the assumption that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

A witness, a Juror, big difference, excellent post sir.

Perhaps many up and down the legal system have in fact forgotten that simple fact.

 

[Konigin]

Innocent until proven guilty, because if you aren't you cannot have a fair trial if it presumed that you are guilty already, there would not be a need for a trial.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
after a quick search, it seems nothing has changed.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html

So I wonder, with such an overwhelming majority supporting the "innocent until proven guilty" view, why is this allowed to go on?

Because the public has forgotten about him.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
after a quick search, it seems nothing has changed.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html

So I wonder, with such an overwhelming majority supporting the "innocent until proven guilty" view, why is this allowed to go on?

Because the public has forgotten about him.

also because most people have the "I'm not a terrorist so I have nothing to worry about" attitude.

 

[Medea]

Originally posted by: friedpie
Innocent until proven guilty is really a standard for juries. The jury has to believe in a defendant's innocence until proven otherwise for obvious reasons. The very fact that a person was arrested and is on trial by nature suggests guilt so the jury has to believe innocence first.

As a citizen sitting at home watching a trial on tv or reading about it in the papers, I have no such obligation as to one's innocence. I can believe someone guilty until proven otherwise in a court of law...

The burden of proof is overwhelmingly on the prosecution. They usually have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The system was designed so that guilty men would go free rather than an innocent man going to jail.

Hmm, but that just begs the question. Think of when someone is arrested. Isn't your first reaction that they "got the guy who did it?" Also, from friends and family, don't they say to you: "Hey, did you hear they got/arrested the guy who did it?"

Now, of course, the problem becomes picking a jury who will follow the premise of innocent until proven guilty from the general public who usually believes in guilty until proven innocent.