2007-05-29 06:46:54 · 16 answers · asked by Brittany 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It's both really...
You're considered guilty in the eyes of the police, etc because you're arrested and charged and treated as if you are guilty of the crime until otherwise proven.
In court itself, it is apparently on the prosecutor to prove that you are guilty.. not for you to prove you're innocent.. (at least that's the way it's supposed to be.. but much of the time it doesn't work that way)..
Technically you do have to have it both ways too... because if you were to be considered innocent until proven guilty.. then really.. there would be no reason to hold you, etc.. and you can't have that.. you need to hold people that could be a danger, etc.. So, you do have to consider people to be guilty until proven otherwise.. BUT at the same time, it should be up to the prosecutors (as it generally is) to actually prove that you did the crime because if they don't have any proof, you shouldn't be able to be found guilty..
So, yah.. Law is all confusing :)
2007-05-29 06:53:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Innocent until proven guilty.
2007-05-29 06:49:48 · answer #2 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guilty until proven innocent
2007-05-29 06:51:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but unfortunately most of the time it's guilty until proven innocent.
2007-05-29 06:51:38 · answer #4 · answered by lisaandpathailey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know why you asked this in this section, so let me suggest an interpretation that might fit. Evaluating historical evidence is like a law court - trying to decide what we can determine beyond reasonable doubt based on available evidence. How do you approach the evidence regarding the historical figure of Jesus? Innocent until proven guilty (i.e. he didn't say or do a particular thing unless there is corroborating evidence from more than one independent source)? Guilty until proven innocent (i.e. give the sources the benefit of the doubt unless they show themselves untrustworthy)? A lot of the differences of viewpoint go back to these different approaches (not to mention the many who either discard or assume the truthfulness of the whole thing uncritically).
2007-05-29 06:52:35 · answer #5 · answered by jamesfrankmcgrath 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Guilty until proven innocent unless rich.
2007-05-29 06:50:03 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. Bigglesworth 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
innocent until proven guilty
2007-05-29 06:56:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Innocent until proven (beyond reasonable doubt) guilty
2007-05-29 06:50:38 · answer #8 · answered by Tom :: Athier than Thou 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of most of mankind.
Innocent until proven guilty in the "eyes" of Allah (SWT).
2007-05-29 06:50:59 · answer #9 · answered by سيف الله بطل جهاد 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Guilty first. If there wasn't guilt then there would be no need for a law. There needs to be laws to keep the guilt under control. The evidence for guilt is the fact that there is a law against it.
That's why Paul says to live according to the things of virtue, against which there is no law.
2007-05-29 07:03:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋