Innocent until Proven Guilty

[MovingTarget]

Just goes to show that you can only get the justice you can afford. Access to justice is a severe problem for the working poor...

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: her209
Sue said accuser in civil court.

I wanted him to but the truth is the guy who sued has tons of cash and has lawyer friends. It is a losing proposition. On top of that -- more $ + time wasted.

Besides, the accussed is a simple family man who just wants to get on with their life.

The person who sued was a big a-hole who sued a few other people that worked for him because city caught him doing some big work on his home without permits (HUGE pool, etc). He was told that's what he had to do and he neglected it.

Someone who chooses NOT to sue someone because they have tons of cash has a basic misunderstanding of the civil justice system.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: her209
Sue said accuser in civil court.

I wanted him to but the truth is the guy who sued has tons of cash and has lawyer friends. It is a losing proposition. On top of that -- more $ + time wasted.

Besides, the accussed is a simple family man who just wants to get on with their life.

The person who sued was a big a-hole who sued a few other people that worked for him because city caught him doing some big work on his home without permits (HUGE pool, etc). He was told that's what he had to do and he neglected it.

Someone who chooses NOT to sue someone because they have tons of cash has a basic misunderstanding of the civil justice system.

Yes and no. If the other party has more resources available to bring to bear, your odds of actually winning go down. Sure, there are deeper pockets available if you do win, but your odds of winning are lower than when you go after someone of limited means (everything else being equal of course).

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Caecus Veritas
actually, having to prove that one's been acquitted is quite a bitch. many government, banking and other businesses often ask on many different forms/applications if you've ever been charged or convicted of a felony or misdemeanor.

so.. if you've been falsely accused at the age of say 18.... presumably, you'll need to go through the hassle of explaining and carrying proof for the rest of your life whenever you need to fill out some important application/form. not to mention the delay in processing whatever it is you need doing.

records need to be expunged for good if the government cannot prove your guilt.

I can't remember every being asked if I had ever been charged with something, just if I had ever been convicted. I do a lot of hiring (for a fortune 100 company) as part of my responsibilities, and I assure you we've never asked if anyone's been charged with something. Employers who ask if you've ever been charged would open themselves up to potential lawsuits (based on disparate impact etc).

With regard to expunging records, on the one hand I agree with you that if you have not been convicted of anything, you should not have to deal with having that on your record. On the other hand, just because the prosecution could not prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean you're innocent. It just mean they could not 100% prove you did it. OJ was "not guilty", but certainly not "innocent" IMHO.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: jonks
Innocent until proven guilty is about as widely misunderstood a phrase as free speech.

No, it's about as widely abused of a right as free speech.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: gersson
A family member was falsely and maliciously accused of a felony (grand theft) and was aquitted of his crime. However, he had to spend a night in the slammer, pay 800 bail, pay a lawyer, and waste time off work to go to court.

Once aquitted of all wrong doing, had to pay to erase record of being arrested. However, when applying for immigration renewal, the gov. wants this person to prove innocence by submitting proof of aquittal.
More time and money wasted.

This person is a poor SOB who barely even has enough money to make ends meet. Something is wrong with this pic and I'm not sure I know what it is.

/rant.

much tadoo about nothing...in the scheme of things it is still that persons responsibility to possess the documents that show he was aquitted.

By the way what case or what news article are you talking about....

It sure seems like much to do about nothing until you are the person who is involved! Not a news article -- real life (family)

@ Zenmervolt
Sure but who's going to pay for the attorney? Again on a crappy $300 a week salary it can be devastating

I'll PayPal you a quarter for the copy.

But I agree... it does suck.

If I can't use a photo copy of a birth certificate to get a drivers license, I'm sure one wont do for the INS. It'll have to be an official copy which will take time off from work and cost more than a quarter to aquire.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: Dari
Judges gotta eat. Baliffs, bondsmen, prison guards, court clerks, gotta eat.

Just because they have written themselves into the process is no reason to change said process. Lawyers have written themselves into the legal and political systems (and the IRS) so much so that they are practically inseparable. This doesn't mean we shouldn't still TRY to remove them from the process, or at least limit the extent to which they can profit off it. Same goes for a prison system that would prefer putting more people in jail so they can have a bigger budget and a legal system that rewards convictions so much so that actually being guilty of said crime falls to the side far too often.

 

[Caecus Veritas]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Caecus Veritas
actually, having to prove that one's been acquitted is quite a bitch. many government, banking and other businesses often ask on many different forms/applications if you've ever been charged or convicted of a felony or misdemeanor.

so.. if you've been falsely accused at the age of say 18.... presumably, you'll need to go through the hassle of explaining and carrying proof for the rest of your life whenever you need to fill out some important application/form. not to mention the delay in processing whatever it is you need doing.

records need to be expunged for good if the government cannot prove your guilt.

I can't remember every being asked if I had ever been charged with something, just if I had ever been convicted. I do a lot of hiring (for a fortune 100 company) as part of my responsibilities, and I assure you we've never asked if anyone's been charged with something. Employers who ask if you've ever been charged would open themselves up to potential lawsuits (based on disparate impact etc).

With regard to expunging records, on the one hand I agree with you that if you have not been convicted of anything, you should not have to deal with having that on your record. On the other hand, just because the prosecution could not prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean you're innocent. It just mean they could not 100% prove you did it. OJ was "not guilty", but certainly not "innocent" IMHO.

i agree that many do not ask if you've been "charged"; however, there are quite a few that it does present enough of a bother. one example is the application for an SBA business loan.

also, if prosecution could not prove it, then you are innocent (whether true or not). imagine some crazy underage girl (who for whatever reason hates you) lying and accusing you of raping her. are you saying that if the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was raped in the cour of law, then that we should still assume you're a rapist AND a pedo because you were charged with it? what would you use to determine whether one is guilty or innocent?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: jonks
Innocent until proven guilty is about as widely misunderstood a phrase as free speech.

No, it's about as widely abused of a right as free speech.

I'm not sure what that even means.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty means, and only means, that the burden for a criminal conviction rests with the prosecution. In a court of law, defendants are presumed innocent, and do not have to prove their innocence by any measure. They can sit there and not even put on any defense at all, and if the prosecution fails to prove each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant is acquitted. That is all IUPG means. It has nothing to do with public fairness or public perception or media outlets judging people or opining as to guilt.

As to Free Speech, every time someone is publicly scolded by anyone they claim their Free Speech is under assault (see Miss California). If the person doing the scolding isn't a representative of the government in an official capacity threatening or bringing some level of sanction for the speech, then no Free Speech rights are at issue. Free Speech does not mean being able to say whatever you want, whereever you want, and then not having anyone criticize your words.