for example somebody lost something and he /she just blame someone even though he/she didn't know who took it
2007-10-10 16:19:45 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Acussation against a person must be supported with evidence in order to be fair to everyone.
2007-10-10 16:24:56 · answer #1 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it were guilty until proven innocent, then pretty much anyone can be blamed for anything and would have to prove that they did not do it. If they were unable to do so, then the law (at least of the school) would assume that they did and they would have to pay the penalty.
Imagine taking a test in a subject that you really don't like. Despite not liking this subject, you studied for the test. However during class, another student accuses you of copying off their paper. Based upon this, you are now technically guilty of cheating unless you can prove that you didn't, which can be rather difficult in some instances. Say for example that you were not the most popular person in your class or perhaps, you were the smartest in your class but other students were envious and wanted to get you in trouble.
2007-10-10 16:26:43 · answer #2 · answered by cgflann 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Someone who blames others for missing items randomly.....or on poorly supported suspicions... shows developmental disorder issues.
Innocence until proven guilty sounds great, but is rarely practiced in the minds of mankind.....but the courts should live up to that standard even though they don't always do that!
2007-10-10 16:25:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because this change of attitude has been the underlying cause for the disippation of the constitution and our rights as americans. Thats why we should care because one day it just might be your a*s on the line and you would definitely want to be "INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY" unless living in a dictatorship for another 8 years is ok with you.
2007-10-10 16:25:46 · answer #4 · answered by metalsoft@sbcglobal.net 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you have it all wrong. Even though the Constitution says one is innocent until proved guilty, it doesn't work that way. These days people are guilty until proved innocent. Their cases get tried in the media and they are assumed to be guilty when accused of a crime, not after the jury makes its decision.
Many times, people are still considered guilty after the jury has acquitted them.
2007-10-10 16:27:41 · answer #5 · answered by darkdiva 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In this particular case you're under the jurisdiction of the school and its administration. Students are usually SOL where their rights are concerned.
2007-10-10 16:22:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's only when you're in court. School is not court and you are not being convicted criminally by the state.
2007-10-10 16:23:46 · answer #7 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wonderful thing about that's being overlooked minors aren't protected by amendments. that way due process isn't required for a detention or suspension.
2007-10-10 16:28:05 · answer #8 · answered by Jay Argentina 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what's your question?? in school's that doesn't apply because it is a law in school.
2007-10-10 16:22:36 · answer #9 · answered by -$-Rawker-$- 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whe you are caught with something more than "popcorn" in
the bag. you "will care." <|:-})-{*
2007-10-10 16:32:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋