if an offender is proven innocent until proven guilty; does that mean that the victime?

Question

is thought of as lying until proven right?

why is it that the offender is protected before the victim??

i meant assumed sorry not proven :S

for the 1st guy who answered .... ill say yes!! the victim is risking revictimisation from the system, ridicule from authorities and his right to information, right to protection, right to restitution and right to treatment are all put aside

for the 1st guy who answered .... ill say yes!! the victim is risking revictimisation from the system, ridicule from authorities and his right to information, right to protection, right to restitution and right to treatment are all put aside

Answer 1

It is because in law they have to protect the rights of the criminal. Time and time again the rights of the victim do not matter

Answer 2

The presumption of innocence is important because it puts the onus on the state, which has greater resources than the victim (yes even wealthy ones). The state had full and unfettered access to the crime scene, to evidence, to police, detectives, witnesses, the courts etc. Now disclosure rules (which I know some of my crafty law students will note) notwithstanding the deck is unfairly stacked in the favor of the state. Imagine with all that against you if you had to PROVE your innocence. Which is essentially providing a negative.

Take for instance this scenario. I am home alone this weekend. A neighbor is raped by a guy that looks like me. Now at last years block association x-mas party I commented to a couple of guys how i would love to "hit that", but she plays hard to get.

I have been in my neighbors house several times as her father and I are friends. I am accused of the rape.

It will be difficult anyway, but if I had to PROVE I didn't do it wow! All sorts of fingerprints and DNA in the house, the comments and o one to alibi me (remember i was alone) for the time of the crime.
The system isn't perfect, but the alternative? We don't have the space for the jails.

Answer 3

No. The victim has already been made a victim by the offender. You are presumed innocent until it is determined that the facts prove guilt or innocence. That's the way the Constitution is written, to protect the innocent. It's a safeguard against unwarranted imprisonment. It applies to American citizens. Illegal aliens are not citizens and not protected by the Constitution.

Answer 4

Because it's still the best way round. If someone is guilty until proven innocent, then the police could arrest you for child abuse and you would have to spend a year or so in prison making a case to PROVE you're not. Then they could arrest you again on charges of murder, and again you'd have to prove you're not guilty. It's to stop abuse of the system, and is one of our most precious freedoms.

Answer 5

The offender is "assumed" innocent, not "proven" innocent. The assumption of innocence has nothing to do with the veracity of the victim.

Answer 6

because when somebody gets accused wrongly, often they have to sit in jail anyway

nobody questions that the victims were hurt, its just a question of, hurt by who

when somebody wrongly accuses somebody of being a pedophile say, it can be almost as bad a crime as what they accuse an innocent person of

Answer 7

The current Duke "rape" case is a fine example of why we should treat people as innocent until proven guilty.

Answer 8

This is referred to as "burden of proof". It puts the onus on the State to prove a charge against an accused.The "burden of proof" is reversed in France. The onus is on the accused to prove his innocence;so if you go to France ,you better behave.

Answer 9

it's not really "lying", but the Victim makes an ACCUSATION which is then CHARGED as an offence and then it is put to trial to be a GUILTY

so, the victim is the "accuser" until proven to be "aggreived"

Answer 10

You got that wrong, theres a PRESUMPTION of innocense until PROVEN guilty. That means that it's not automatically assumed that you're guilty until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt.