If somebody suspects you of something and you really didn't do it, why should you have to take the punishment if they frame you and you have no evidence to prove that?
2007-08-06 07:22:25 · 12 answers · asked by Yahoo Man 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Hence the value of "innocent until proven guilty" Is not true, I think the police get gung ho, when working a case." It is guilty until proven innocent," and I think it is time Blind Justice took off her blindfold.
2007-08-13 05:12:12 · answer #1 · answered by flannelpajamas1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
first of all there's always some kind of evidence...think hard about that...the police should come up with the evidence. But, you need to hire a good lawyer who will be on your side. There are always cameras around, shoe prints, fingerprints (or lack of), dna, something from the scene left on your clothing or not, someone seeing you or not or you had a good alibi and were with friends or at home watching something on tv or making a phone call to not put you at the scene, etc. and, although not admissible in a courtroom there is also the lie-detector test. But, and above all, if the person opens their mouth in a jail cell (usually they are so lonely that they talk) then their buddie in there is a witness to whether they really did it or not. In addition, a good PI can track a person's movements quite well...the attorney will hire one just to be sure that he's backing an innocent person.
2007-08-12 17:07:40 · answer #2 · answered by sophieb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You will have to be more specific as to the details of the circumstances surrounding the incident in question...as written, your question lacks enough credible information to make a valid decision.
Many are making an assumption you are actually asking about the judicial system, but the way I see the question, this could be a workplace incident or some exchange that took place between you and your parents- using a sibling as the accuser.
Personally, Id like more info.
2007-08-06 14:27:01 · answer #3 · answered by paradigm_thinker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If innocent until proven guilty were truly the law, then there would not be people on death row who were tried for crimes that they did not commit. Its more like if it looks like you did it, then you are guilty. Which is not necessary the case. There are people in this world who were set up to appear to be guilty and never proven innocent, and they suffered, because the law is not perfect. It is only what you van prove. In regards to proof and the world that we live in, sometimes things are not what they seem. As my father used to say as regards to justice system and capital punishment ,"if you got the capital you don't get the punishment, that's why it is called capital punishment."
2007-08-12 03:58:39 · answer #4 · answered by PEACE 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are convicted you do the punishment; if you didn't do it and are convicted its pretty tuff luck but the fact of the matter is it rarely if ever happens. If you were framed you should be able to prove it some way or some how - if you were framed.
2007-08-06 14:25:49 · answer #5 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not fair, that's just how it goes sometimes. So now you have a choice on whether to react and let it screw with your head, or to accept it and move on. One thing you could keep in mind that might help...in the end, the truth will out.
2007-08-06 14:27:47 · answer #6 · answered by Martin M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not fair, but it sometimes happens (blacks accused of crimes before the 60's often got sent to jail even if they were innocent, and remember the Duke lacrosse guys?). I'd probably scream bloody murder if someone did that to me, and try to lawyer up ASAP.
2007-08-06 14:25:18 · answer #7 · answered by rahidz2003 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you didn't do it, excercise your right to remain silent and eventually the authorities will run into an detail where you are concerned that they either can not prove, or that you can use to prove your innocence!
2007-08-13 18:52:31 · answer #8 · answered by Ryan 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The burden of proof is on the accuser. Any decent lawyer should keep you from being falsely convicted.
2007-08-06 14:27:27 · answer #9 · answered by lunatic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hence the value of "innocent until proven guilty".
You don't have to prove that you are innocent.
The govt must first prove that you are guilty.
2007-08-06 14:25:10 · answer #10 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋