Case in point, Barry Bonds's steroid abuse (BALCO screwed him over) and Michael Vick's dog fighting ring (with video footage of the events). I don't see why some people say one's "innocent until proven guilty" when there's much evidence that proves them to be guilty without a doubt. I mean, how can a judge be dumb enough to see amounts of evidence against a defendant and let him go? Sure the system has its flaws, but it should get it right once and a while!
And don't get me started on that one NBA ref who bet on games!
2007-07-26 15:49:19 · 9 answers · asked by Redeemer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The crime is alleged until the defendant is tried in court.
2007-07-26 15:53:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A person is "innocent until proven guilty" in a court room.
The news media shows us all kinds of stuff, but it is not evidence until it gets into court.
Rmember the LaCross boys who were supposedly at the party where the party got some girel to come and do strip tease dance, and supposedly some of the boys assaulted her.
One of the accused boys, as part of his defense, had taxi driver what time he was some place else, and used an ATM which had a time stamp ... so that was two pieces of evidnece that he was somewhere else at the time that the alleged rape took place.
Suppose you & a bunch of other people say it is pretty obvious that a particular person is guilty of using steroids, or organizing dog fights, or murdering his wife, or raping a child, or whatever the crime is.
Then suppose, thanks to a good lawyer defense, the accused is found not guilty. The accused can then turn around and sue you and the other people for libel, collect all the money you have ... so to avoid this liability, we use words like "suspect" and "allegedly" for people who have not yet been convicted.
Remember OJ Simpson ... the criminal trial found him not guilty. So anyone who says he did it, is technically libeling an innocent man who could sue them.
The civil trial found something different, but under criminal law he cannot be retried, double jeopardy.
2007-07-26 16:03:36 · answer #2 · answered by Al Mac Wheel 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Allegedly" means it has not been proven in a court of law.
The use of the word is to prevent lawsuits for defamation if the person is later acquitted. If charges are filed, then the person is "allegedly guilty" of the actions, by definition. Because there are allegations on record.
And it's not up to the judge to determine guilt -- the jury is the finder of fact. And the jury can only base the conviction on evidence that can be legally admitted based on the rules of evidence -- not popular opinion. That's the law.
2007-07-26 15:54:22 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The fact that one is accused of a crime or that it is alleged one committed a crime is not a statement that he did or didn't actually do it. It's alleged that he did it until it is proven (usually in court) that he did it, or he admits that he did. It's somewhat semantic but everyone who is "accused" isn't guilty. If I accuse you of being a heroin addict then you are an "alleged" heroin addict just because I alleged it. I can't prove that, of course, so you are never proven guilty and no can can say you ARE a heroin addict. Personally I think it's a good thing that we all maintain a clear understanding of the difference between being accused of something and it being proven that we did it.
2007-07-26 17:27:25 · answer #4 · answered by RangerEsq 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because you are not convicted does NOT mean you didn't actually commit the crime. What you are talking about is directly related to the Burden Of Proof required for a conviction; Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. If you "allege" someone to have committed a crime, they either have not been tried on the issue, OR there was no conviction. It does NOT mean they didn't do it.
2007-07-26 16:52:19 · answer #5 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The devil is in the details.
This dodge keeps the media out of court.
"Allegedly" means someone, (doesn't matter who), has made an acusation.
If I say you pick your nose, you 'allegedly` pick your nose whether you actually do or not..
2007-07-26 18:16:32 · answer #6 · answered by Irv S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it's the court's job to decide what the evidence proves, not yours or anybody elses.
2007-07-26 18:33:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Two words for ya. O.J.
2007-07-26 16:06:39 · answer #8 · answered by grumpyoldman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why did you lose some $$$!
2007-07-26 15:54:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋