Why does no one understand innocent until proven guilty?

Question

Barry Bonds has never been suspended and has never failed a drug test. Michael Vick has not been proven guilty either. Pardon the pun but both of these guys are being treated like dogs. Why does no one understand that all individuals no matter what they are accussed of are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

Answer 1

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal position taken by the courts. It is one of the tenets of our legal system.
We don't always have to wait until a court of law comes down with a ruling to have our own opinions of what is going on. Once we start developing an opinion, we are free to discuss it in whatever forum we choose. If our opinion is sound, and well reasoned, it may alter others opinions as well. This is part of the court of public opinion.

Answer 2

You have to understand that "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal concept that is really intended for a jury: it means that the prosecutor has to prove that the defendant has committed the crime and the defendant does not have to prove innocence.

As for the general public, most people may decision based on gut reactions derived by what they read and their own common sense. I understand that Barry Bonds has never been suspended or tested positive but there is a signifigant amount of circumstatial evidence that indicates he used Steroids: His close connections with BALCO and the fact that he was putting up better and better statistics at an age where his physical skills should have been in decline. The same with Michael Vick there is alot of circumstantial evidence combined with the fact the Federal Prosecutors have a reputation for conducting thorough investigations before bringing any charges.

I understand your frustration: I hate to see people "convicted" in the Court of public opinion before a full examination of the evidence against them, but that is not the way most Americans go about the process. Let's face it, if you or I were charged with serious crimes, we most likely would lose our jobs right away.

Answer 3

True, very true. However they must have pretty incriminating evidence to indict him. But that's besides the point. Most American's know that money can and will out weight justice. Look at Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson. Michael repeatedly paid money to parents and lawyers to stay out of jail. And well OJ, still having a hard time understanding how he can be found innocent for the murder yet guilty when being sued by the Goldman?? family. So he was found financially responsible but not physically, no jail time??
Money buys just about everything, including innocense.
Heck, if it weren't for the media desperately looking for news Paris Hilton would have never served jail time. The only reason she did is because she's been busted so many times and it's always been on the front page of the internet. And look how she was treated, above the rest of us commoners. So innocent until proven guilty is pretty much BS, especially if you have money. Only us hard working citizen's are ever guilty. I can't think of a celebrity or rich man in jail besides famous members of the mafia and unskilled rappers.

Answer 4

Because they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not public opinion. We do not have to follow the rules that the court does. We can form our opinions based on fact. If the case of Vick went to court and took one day then he would be found guilty/not guilty. But they drag them out. If the BALCO hearings would be released and we would know exactly what happened with Bonds we wouldn't have to go on very strong circumstantial evidence. But Bonds never denied anything said in the Book of Shadows. If he was innocent he would declare his innocence right? Why wouldn't he, he would have nothing to lose.

Answer 5

In theory, one is "innocent until proven guilty" but in practice everyone is guilty unless they can prove their innocence. In a modern world, it has to be that way as if a person is assumed "innocent" then he or she has the right to freedom (bail) until such a time that a trial can be held. That, in effect, allows for every terrorist to walk the streets, alongside every criminal that has been recorded committing crime and / or terrorist acts. With CCTV, DNA, forensic science and positive witnesses, in many cases the guilt is already proven. However, the Law is an *** and if a criminal can find a simple loophole, he / she can collapse the case against him / her. Just because a policeman does not read his/ her rights correctly, upon arrest is enough to have all charges dropped as it becomes an illegal arrest. Due to the gun running, drug taking, bomb plotting etc. scum of society, it is much safer to declare guilt before innocence. I would rather see one innocent person to 99 guilty persons in prison than no innocents and only 20 guilty. We have learnt that to proceed against suspects with caution only allows more criminals free to continue with crime than those that are locked away. Therefore we have many more victims of crime than necessary. Look at the facts, those countries that the US condemn for keeping prisoners locked up in so called inhumane conditions etc. are virtually free of crime and other threats. The US and Europe allow criminals freedom until they are found guilty and have those criminals reoffending during the whole process. When a criminal is sentenced to 10 years, he is unlucky to do seven of the 10. Ten years should mean 10 years and life should mean life. However, one thing that puzzle me is the stupid sentences that are passed in the US. A criminal can have 20 charges against him, be found guilty on all charges and get a total of 200, even 300+years in prison?? How does he serve his sentence? If he is released before the term is over, isn't he pardoned or something? If that person is guilty, they should keep the bones in his cell until his due date of release otherwise, he got away with his crime as his punishment wasn't complete.

Answer 6

You are wrong. If the accused are innocent, then they are innocent unless someone lies about them in court. The situation is actually that the accused is to be treated as though innocent, i.e. no punishment, by the court system.

This has absolutely zero to do with what is called the Court of Public Opinion or with any kind of league or association rules.

When you join into something like Major League Baseball or the National Football League, you agree to abide by their rules of conduct. Violate them at your own risk.

These rules of jurisprudence do NOT apply outside the portions of the civilian court system based on English Common Law. They especially do not apply if you are in the military or in Louisiana. Louisiana state law is based on the Napoleanic Code in which it is the responsibility of the accused to prove his or her innocence. The military courts are based on a document called The Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Answer 7

Cho Seung Hui was a calm student who kept to himself. He was an intelligent person- well at least according to those in his jr. high and high schools and yet look what he managed to do.
While this may sound bad- prejudice is in human nature itself too. Let the trial go and see what happens.

Answer 8

Excellent question. I suppose the press and media is just making it seem like it, and it's just human nature to believe it.