we don't have witch hunts anymore and burning at the stake...should we put the burden of proof on the accused instead...
2007-07-26 12:45:38 · 12 answers · asked by turntable 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
This is still America and our constitution still gives that right to everyone. Theoretically, its a good rule of law.
2007-07-26 12:50:19 · answer #1 · answered by redhighheelsneakers_ 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"Innocent until proven guilty" will never be outdated; it is a true humane concept. The trouble is, today most people just don't get it! From almost every corner peoples' manner towards the accused is "Guilty; prove to me that you didn't do it!" The slightest finger pointed at you will bring out the rage in people. Very few people seem to understand the concept of "burden of proof" at all. I think we are getting very close to the witchhunt stage.
2007-07-26 22:27:18 · answer #2 · answered by Brigid O' Somebody 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh absolutely! Lets just throw everybody in jail. After all, if you're innocent, you should have no problem proving it, right?
Seriously, the burden of proof is on the courts because it's nearly impossible to prove a negative. In other words, it's far easier to prove whether somebody DID do something wrong than it is to prove that he DIDN'T do something wrong. The Founding Fathers lived during the Enlightenment era and as such were well versed in the field of logic, so they knew what they were talking about.
.
2007-07-27 02:37:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely not! It is a key element in the concepts of freedom and security, and we cannot allow the burden of proof to fall onto the shoulders of the accused, otherwise we will descend into a fascist state. Do some reading about that, and you will understand why this is such an important factor in our society.
2007-07-26 19:55:02 · answer #4 · answered by TitoBob 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that is what separates the US from the terrorist and the fascist dictators that we claim to oppose.
Innocent until proven guilty means the burden is on the govt to take away someone's right to be free and to live their life.
Guilty until proven innocent means the govt can lock you up forever, until you convince them that you are not a threat.
Saying it's obsolete means you think that the only people who should have any freedom are the ones that never have any enemies..... good luck with that model.
2007-07-26 19:52:10 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think "innocent until proven guilty" is often said and Rarely practiced. Like police finding the hemp seeds you feed your birds, accusing you of growing marijuana, and throwing you in jail until they can annalyze it. Or how about the thousands of middle easterners who "Look" like terrorists and are yanked out of the airport and held captive until police question them?
No matter what they say, you are always considered guilty until proven innocent. but it shouldn't be that way.
2007-07-26 20:05:06 · answer #6 · answered by Jenn 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Media and the General Pulic already does!!!!
Thank God we have a Judicial system that puts the burdon on the accuser, not the accused.
You are putting a dangerous amount of power in the DA's ofice otherwise...
2007-07-26 19:50:21 · answer #7 · answered by Ken C 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, I think "innocent until proven guilty" is more important than ever.
Now victims groups will argue otherwise, but then they have a need to be "victims".
2007-07-26 19:56:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2007-07-26 19:53:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, I think "Guilty as deemed by the public" would be a more appropriate term in this day and age.
2007-07-26 19:52:09 · answer #10 · answered by Mkath 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋