is thought of as lying until proven right?
why is it that the offender is protected before the victim??
2007-01-20 05:57:29 · 7 answers · asked by Lara^mt 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
"Presumption of innocence is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. It states that no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to convince the court that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In principle, the defense does not have to 'prove' anything. However, the defense may present evidence tending to show that there is a doubt as to the guilt of the accused."
- We live in a country where our citizens are protected against one person who is the judge, the jury and the executioner. God bless America!
2007-01-20 06:08:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the victim is not considered to be lying until proven right. The prosecution of a crime is one of a crime that is against society. It is for the betterment of society the laws exist and it best serves society to never convict an innocent person - so everyone is innocent until proven guilty. To prove the innocent guilty you must do so "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is where the victim comes in - the victim is evidence of the crime. As a society we wish to vindicate our victims. So they testify and we try to have a punishment for the criminal that is comensurate to what the victim and loved ones and society has suffered. The victim is protected first by these laws of crime and punishment. The offender is only protected by the subsequent trial. This make sense?
2007-01-20 14:13:00 · answer #2 · answered by Another Garcia 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "offender" isn't known to be an offender until he's found guilty, he's just suspected and accused of the crime.
The "victim" isn't known to be a victim of that accused's actions until he's found guilty. He might be lying about the whole thing, or or who did it, or any other part of the offence, or he might be mistaken about any of those things.
Before we punish people, we have to be sure that we're punishing the right person, and that we're punishing them for what they've actually done.
If you send the wrong person to prison, it means the actual offender is still out there.
By making sure guilt is proved, you're not protecting offenders, you're protecting people who might or might not be guilty. By punishing people who are proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, we're proecting society as a whole, not just the person who's already suffered.
2007-01-20 14:12:09 · answer #3 · answered by Liz 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it doesn't mean that. the victimis still a victim, but the suspect may not be guilty.
like if my house was burglarized, I am a victim. but if the cops pick up Joe down the street and that doesn't mean Joe did it. maybe it was Steve from across town.
thus the suspects are innocent until it is proven that they did the crime.
and one could argue that if you are falsely accused you are a victim-especially if you are treated like a criminal
2007-01-20 14:21:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, it is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but if that was the case, then why are people actually arrested then tried?
2007-01-20 14:01:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution, and in decisions like Miranda v. Arizona, has stated that defendants have certain rights under the Constitution.
2007-01-22 10:48:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no... on TV since the show is fiction..unless it was based on a true story...they are innocent until proven guilty.. meaning they may not have enough evidence to prove that they are guily enough
2007-01-20 15:07:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋