What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I havn't seen a bit of evendence of a crime yet people on both political sides are calling for an investigation. Some are even calling for impeachment. I dont agree with his politics but all people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is the american way. People who say he's guilty because he made a plea deal dont understand our judicial system. The only mistake Craig has made is thinking he would have been better off with a lawyer. Only guilty people need lawyers. A lawyer is more likely to try to convince you to cop a plea especially on a misdemeanor.
It sickens me that so many are taking the word or a cop, and a news magizine that has been out to get him for a long time.
2007-08-29 03:27:44 · 9 answers · asked by wisemancumth 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
pleading guilty is not the same as being convicted and its very far from accually being guilty. No one in the public knows what he plead guilty to. A plea is always to a lesser charge. People dont plea because they're guilty. Mostly its to save time and expense of endless adjournments and a trial.
2007-08-29 05:33:29 · update #1
And he learned all those crapper pick-up moves where? Is it in an RNC pamphlet? You taught him? Were the instructions on a pack of Boise Joy-Boy condoms?
2007-08-30 05:17:12 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Um, he plead guilty to a lesser charge to try and get rid of incident. So, therefore, there was evidence and he is at least guilty to the charge he plead to - as they don't accept guilty pleas from people that claim to be innocent (it says that right on the form he signed). The notion that only guilty people need lawyers is stupid on its face. When dealing with prosecutors, who are lawyers, you better have someone who knows what they are doing on your side. Remember, he took the deal on his own. If this was just the misunderstanding (yeah, a wide stance on the john) that he claims it was, he would have fought the charges and went after the cops and done anything to clear his name.
2007-08-29 03:38:21 · answer #2 · answered by remowlms 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He already pleaded guilty to a crime. The innocent until proven guilty only applies before conviction. Besides it appears that this is just the latest incident.
2007-08-29 03:40:57 · answer #3 · answered by some_guy_times_50 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Apparently you missed the part about HE PLEADED GUILTY. Therefore, the presumption of innocence ended at that moment.
Oh yes, and the "only guilty people need lawyers" Ever heard of the Duke lacrosse case?!?
Looking at the arrest report and the charging document even a person with a modicum of intelligence (yes even a US senator) could have determined that the charges were a stretch and a competent lawyer could have gotten him off MUCH better than pleading guilty to "make it go away." Why did he want to "make it go away" instead of fight for his innocence as indignantly as he maintains he "is not gay?"
2007-08-29 03:33:03 · answer #4 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Oh, you are so offended! Man who ever heard of going after a politician when they haven't really committed a crime. Next, a judge will dismiss the case, and those b***tards will still insist he's guilty.
Like the Whitewater case.
Shame, isn't it?
2007-08-29 03:37:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Dude, he pled guilty, get a clue.
2007-08-29 03:36:58 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
he shouldn't have pleaded guilty then, if he did nothing wrong.
2007-08-29 03:32:11 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
It's because He's a pubic figure! That's why nothing ever fair with them in the media!
2007-08-29 03:33:25 · answer #8 · answered by mrsalramey 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Have you ever watched a program about hyenas tearing at a carcass? That’s a prefect comparison to the liberal reaction to Sen. Craig.
2007-08-29 03:30:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋