Why should a 100% guilty person have the right to plead not guilty?

Question

Hellooo Police Officer's, Lawyer's, what's going on here???
I just watched tonight news about that David Zanon that ran over at high speed and killed Douglas Scott Russell (22 year veteran of CHP) here in California. He shows up in court and pleads not guilty. How more ridiculous is that? There were other Police Officer's there and SAW the whole thing! I say if there are two or more bona fide witnesses to a killing crime; why not go straight to the sentencing. Cut the chase and save the family from suffering more grief. What will come out of Zanan's mouth will be lies on top of lies. Geez, the other Officer's are bona fide. Change the laws!

Hey some of you, there is NO innocent until proven guilty (by law yes) because he IS guilty. It is ALREADY proven he is guilty. Zanon will be tried for the death senctence. All what I meant is in this kind of crime they should just cut the chase. Don't you guys get it?

Dear Bambi, I am sorry and heartbroken that happened in your family. Jehovah God have compassion for his children. I know you know what I mean that you went through it. I just feel it's not fair for innocent victims and family to go through unnecessary drag out trials when BOTH lawyer's know his guilty. I don't see it as you have sin for how you feel. You got that right to love good and to hate evil.
John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I don't give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid."
Jesus is YOUR Love in the time of crisis.
Thank you for letting us share to all victims. God bless Douglas Scott Russel's family and friends.

Answer 1

It's the law of the land; that's why.


In May my brother was shot to death in his own home,
he saved the lives of the others that were there @ the time.
He did shoot 1 of them, THANK *Jehovah God!!!!
It'll make it HARD to prove he wasn't there.....
ya hear me?
So, no matter if he pleads innocent,
he's not and the DNA will prove it.
He bleed in the house and all the way out to the car.
Yes, it'll be a waste of taxpayers $.
It's the law.

* and I'll have to b judged for the joy I have knowing my brother did shoot 1 of them.
I guess.
The Scriptures do say there is no blood guilt,
for actually harming / killing a person that comes into ur house @ nite,
to do u and yours harm.
Murderers are not allowed into the Kingdom of God.
Now, if the man is repentant;
sorry for what he has done
that's up to Jehovah to judge.
Then I will deal w/ that; if that b the case.
In the end of it all;
Jehovah will Judge.
That's where my trust lies.

edit: thk u 4 the comments. Shalei.
The man may plead out; take a deal.
Then he wouldn't b pleading innocent, of course.
We shall see?
This also, is part of the process.
If it goes to trial....
Some ppl will wag their heads;
while others will become outraged.
So I do understand what ur saying about
what the family & friends would be subjected to.

Answer 2

Because a "not guilty" plea still requires the prosecutor to prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

And with a "not guilty" plea, the defendant can still assert affirmative defenses, which is everyone's legal right.

And how do you determine "two or more bona fide witnesses" without a trial -- which is another guaranteed constitutional protection.

Your system is too easy to abuse -- any two people can make up any story, tell it to a judge, and convict someone of anything with no further proof required.

Answer 3

Everyone has the right to plea "not guilty." It doesn't make it so, but it does put the burden of proof on the state.
I think that it is a great thing that, in this country, one must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't doubt your facts, but, assuming they are so, then, it will be no problem to convict this individual.
I'm sorry for your loss, but let's not change the laws.

Answer 4

If the evidence is so clear-cut, then you should have no objection to letting the guy have a trial. No matter how obvious a situation may look, it's still up to a judge and jury to decide what the evidence says and who's guilty. That's not up to you or the police (thank goodness). You can't compel a person to testify against himself because that assumes guilt before it has been proven.

Answer 5

The bottom line is this - America has the most modern judicial system in the world and it SUCKS anyway. Innocent until proven guilty - yada, yada, yada. I think if you have eye witnesses, you got video tape, you got the gun or whatever, you got the blood evidence, you got the hair, etc. then there is no "not guilty" your Honor. Unfortunately, it all has to start with the "not guilty." It is insulting at very best.

Answer 6

Innocent until PROVED guilty.

You'd skip the proof phase? Just take the word of the officers and shoot them?

How about we let a judge decide.

I'm all for increasing the sentence if they plead innocent and are found guilty, by the way (Oh, they do that, don't they?)!

Answer 7

Because the prosecution has the burden of proof to show he is guilty. Given the circumstances described in your question I am hopeful the D.A. also shows special circumstances, so this guy can be sent off with a death sentence.

Answer 8

Actually, the answer is quite simple:
Constitutionally Speaking, all who are accused of a Crime have a right to a TRIAL. Entering a plea of guilty means there is no trial.

Answer 9

Unfortunately, I wish that was one law we could change. There is some crimes people commit that I wish they were just shot dead right then and there and not waste tax payers money. I think if we had stricter punishments for some of these kids thinking they can go and just shoot up schools, and these perverts doing what they do to the kids, well, maybe if we took one and made a horrible example out of them, and was able to shoot if guilty right on the spot, our population would feel a little safer.

Answer 10

Because the liberals have the justice system by the balls. If we stopped worrying about hurting everyone's feelings by calling them guilty before going through the motions to prove the obvious, we'd not have to watch this bullcrap. But until then, we just have to put up with it.