Is innocent until proven guilty still true in USA?

Question

Are miranda rights quaint?

what about unreasonable search and seizure?

Answer 1

No - not as long as a single person can decide you are "an enemy combatant" and keep you locked up and tortured indefinitely, without charging you with a specific crime, without legal representation and without allowing you to see the evidence against you.

Answer 2

I am not sure anyone was ever "innocent until proven guilty" in the strictest sense of the phrase.

Quaint?

Unreasonable search and seizure is illegal and in my opinion should be harshly dealt with when discovered. There are many locales within our borders that turn away from acknowledging such tactics and IMO, it is a violation of our basic constitutional rights. BASIC!!

Answer 3

Three separate issues -- but yes, most exist in theory.

In the US, several US citizens have been held or imprisoned or punished based solely on allegations, with no trial at all. And there are still hundreds of other people held in US custody based solely on allegations, in violation of constitutional requirements -- as the US Supreme Court keeps confirming is invalid.

Miranda warnings are possibly redundant given the general knowledge about the peoples rights -- but the Miranda holding didn't grant any new rights. It just said that people need to be informed of their existing rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments.

And unreasonable search and seizure is unconstitutional and illegal -- but it still happens.

Answer 4

No. Reference "Duke Lacrosse/Nifong". The unyielding quest for power often leads the ambitious on a path which decimates the rights of the people. This appears to occur with little or no concern for the precepts upon which our society was built.
While the Duke case never delivered any verdict (it's hard to prosecute when one has no reliable evidence to support allegations), this particular bureaucrat proceeded as if the guilt of the accused was a foregone conclusion, doing immense and irreparable harm to the lives, reputation and financial future of the unjustly accused and their families.
As for unreasonable search and seizure, many in law enforcement will go to great lengths to justify any action deemed productive to whatever "cause" they pursue without regard for those to whom they have sworn servitude. This premise is exemplified by the actions of those in power in Louisiana and New Orleans during the reprehensible confiscation of arms from law abiding citizens.
There can be no justification for either of these atrocities and still they were carried out by those in search of power and glory without regard for duty.

Answer 5

(From Wikipedia): "In common law, habeas corpus (/ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔɹpəs/) (Latin: [We command that] you have the body) is the name of a legal action or writ through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action."

Habeas corpus has been suspended. I was under the impression that it's a cornerstone of any self-respecting democracy worthy of the name, but evidently that hasn't caused much alarm in this country.

Answer 6

In the eyes of the law, yes one is innocent until proven guilty.

Answer 7

sounds nice but its not true especially in a small hick town threre its guilty until proven innocent.

Answer 8

Yes and No with a direct correlation to the amount of money at your disposal.

Answer 9

Depends if your asking sincerely or merely shilling for Michael Vick.

Answer 10

It's a nice saying, but it has always been; guilty until proven innocent.