English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I mean, if you have nothing to hide, you should be able to beat the charges, right? Only those that can't beat the charges would go to jail...what's wrong with that?

2006-09-08 09:26:40 · 15 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

as a matter of fact, I do have another question! Do you believe it is OK for our government to use illegal wiretapping? Many think 'yes' since they have nothing to hide.

2006-09-08 09:54:54 · update #1

15 answers

Many innocent people have spent years, or even their lives in jail. Many innocent people have been executed. More often than not they are minorities.
If a man is innocent until proven guilty then why is he locked up until he goes to trial?
Yes we tend to 'try and convict' people before we know the story. The media specializes in that. Most arrested people are guilty but just because you have nothing to hide and are innocent doesn't necessairly mean you have nothing to fear or will be aquitted/exhonorated of the charges. The most damning circumstantial evidence is usually eyewitness identification, and it is also the most errored type of evidance, again especially in the case of minorities.

2006-09-08 09:42:32 · answer #1 · answered by Doctor ~W. 5 · 2 1

No. It's more difficult, and sometimes impossible, to prove innocence. In our justice system, people are not found 'innocent', they are found 'not-guilty'. This is for a reason. Many more innocent people would be in jail, leaving the guilty to go free if we had a system that required proving innocence. Our system of 'innocent until proven guilty', as much as it is about making sure we don't imprison innocent people, it's also about making sure we get the right person off the street. It makes the justice system work harder to ensure that they have the right person, rather than just throwing someone in jail to placate the public.

The followup:
Asking about 'illegal' wiretapping is a loaded question. Of course I don't support 'illegal' wiretapping of any kind. The issue this question relates to, however, is president Bush's assertion that it's LEGAL and constitutional to wiretap, without a warrant, calls made to/from foreign contacts that are KNOWN to have terrorist connections. If that's legal, I have no problem with it as long as there is some kind of after-the-fact oversight. It appears that the Supreme Court will decide that issue. Also, I have no problem with it (where 'it' is warrant-less wiretaps of known terrorist foreign phone numbers with after-the-fact oversight) being legal.

2006-09-08 11:00:29 · answer #2 · answered by Will 6 · 0 0

The different in the presumption of innocence, versus the presumption of guilt, is who bears the burden of proof.

Under the current "presumed innocent" model, the government is required to prove that you committed the crime. It they fail to prove their case, that's it. You're free. But, IF they succeed in proving that you did commit the criminal actions, you can still attempt to prove your affirmative defenses (justification, etc.).

Under a "presumed guilty" model, the government doesn't need to prove anything. They walk in and their job is done. You now need to convince the judge and/or jury that you didn't do it. And it's always much harder to prove a negative.

Look at an example: you are being charged with murder. There's no body, the victim is simply missing, you had no motive, but you also have no alibi. Nobody saw anything. Prove you didn't do it.

Under a "presumed guilty" model, if you cannot prove you didn't do it, the government still wins with no evidence to support the charge.

2006-09-08 13:58:11 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 0

So you're in favor of no protection against abuse of the system by police officers, the court system, etc.? So if someone is willing to lie and say you committed a crime, they should be allowed to do so? And if a police officer just doesn't like the way you look, he can just arrest you for that reason? And if a judge is up for re-election and thinks it will help him if he puts a few more people in jail, whether they're guilty or not, that should be OK?

2006-09-08 09:28:48 · answer #4 · answered by MOM KNOWS EVERYTHING 7 · 1 0

Absolutely not. I believe in innocent until proven guilty 100%. That is the single most important aspect of our legal system. If you begin with the assumption that a person is guilty and force the burden of proof on them to demonstrate innocence, it becomes far more difficult for innocent defenders to clear themselves and it becomes far easier for the prosecution/state to manufacture guilty verdicts. It also makes it easier to railroad people in political show trials.

I think this standard also applies for conspiracy theories like 9/11. The burden of proof lies with the people claiming it was an inside job, not the administration to prove they did not.

2006-09-08 09:36:12 · answer #5 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 1 0

would you rather prove your innocence, or have the governmnt prove your guilt?
beat the charge, girl you must live in utopia, because you have no concept of the real world.
in america today, there is little justice if you are poor. you have no voice in congress, and no one will stick up for you,
court appointed attorneys are rarely worth the tome to dround, and they are so busy that they have little opportunity to prepare a good defense.
then you want to force the accused to prove their innocence?
you the daughter of someone who builds prisons, right?

now, having said that, outside of a court room, that is the way we do things in america.
your parents accuse you, and groundyou, your teacher doesn't want to hear yourside of the story, and your best friend doesn't talk to you for a week.
would you like to see that in the courts?
if so move to france, or a muslim country.

2006-09-08 09:34:55 · answer #6 · answered by elmo o 4 · 1 0

It should be the other way around. But, unfortunately in some cases, a person is believe guilty, no matter how they fight the system.

2006-09-08 09:32:15 · answer #7 · answered by skyeblue 5 · 1 0

No, why would anyone want to have to defend theirself against charges when they have done nothing wrong. And you don't prove your innocence in american courts, you are found either quilty or not quilty(which legally doesn't mean innocent)

2006-09-08 09:43:35 · answer #8 · answered by breeze1 4 · 1 0

i in my view believe in threat free before shown to blame. everybody has the right to a tribulation and also you'll't in basic terms bypass round assuming that everybody is to blame before you've the information to again it up. large question :)

2016-11-06 22:15:54 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Thankfully, our constitution says you are innocent until proven guilty.

2006-09-08 10:58:49 · answer #10 · answered by rhymingron 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers