Why do people keep going on about " innocent until proven guilty"?

Question

It has never been a premise of the British judiciary and isn`t on any statutes,you can however be found "Not guilty" all that means is that the jury could not come to a majority decision that the defendant was guilty and therefore would be aquitted pending further investigation if found to be necessary at a later date.
Being aquitted of the charge is nothing more than being released from police custody and the lifting of any bail conditions,,You cannot be found "Innocent" or "Innocent of any charge" unless the judge in very unusuall circumstances says so in a summing up,,usually applied to civil cases,but never in "The Crown vs whoever",

"Darren A" here in the UK if you are arrested for any crime a DNA sample + fingerprints and photos are taken and submitted to a database,you details will remain there for many years regardless of innocence or guilt,,being found "Not guilty" means the case could not be proven,,jury systems do not exist throught the world regardless of the poltics of the country,,including Portugal

"Maxx P" it wouldn`t matter who I voted in, the likelyhood of laws now on the statute books being revoked because the majority of the electorate disagreed with them are non-existant,,

"Under pressure" could you point out which bits of the queation and many answers are rubbish?

"Kopites R" that piece of EU legeslation only applies to the jury members and the presiding judge,the police and prosecuting team will presume guilt and the defence will presume innocence

Answer 1

innocent until proven guilty is an American thing, and you are very correct in stating that you can not be proven innocent. some one else can be found guilty and then your name is cleared.
It is a founding truth that My favorite English author Agatha Christie makes in her book "ordeal by Innocence" where someone in the family dies, someone is sent to jail after a long time the person is found not guilty the trail is cold but the suspects are the immediate family. No one knows who to trust and soon it starts to divide them. none could prove they were innocent until the guilty person was found.

Answer 2

LOL used to be the case, but now YOU ARE GUILTY till found otherwise, not sure how and why. Me, have a court case coming up, bail letter reads ' you are on bail to appear on xxx day, you must not contact xxx, as you may commit further offences' ????, I haven't even been found guilty, or come to that, honestly never did what is alleged !!!, so how comes ???, how can or would I commit ANY offence, if I did not in the first place, so here, DEF guilty, until some asshole says otherwise.

Answer 3

This is, however, the case in the United States, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution and everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. There is no legal obligation for the defense to present any arguments or even for the defendant to take the stand.

Answer 4

Never a truer word spoken. And it isn't practised. I have found that a jury will have made their mind up before the case has even started half the time. Why do you think people put on their smartest clothes when attending a court appearence? It certainly isn't out of respect for the court, It is because people know that if they look scruffy they are more likely to be found guilty. Whether that is meant to be the way things are done or not is totally besides the point. It is just the way people are.

Answer 5

Surprised to find that so much rubbish could be found in such a small area, both question and answers.

Edit:
Sorry to keep you waiting.

In law you cannot be found innocent, "not guilty" (aquitted) means what it says, and translates to innocent of all charges.

Double jeopardy precludes being "aquitted pending further investigation" if you are aquitted it means exactly that.

The police cannot aquit you only a court, the judge or the jury, can do that. Being released from police custody and having bail conditions lifted is just that. You will either be released without charge or you will be charged and released on unconditional bail to appear wherever.

The judge is not required to make any comment at all and would certainly not say anything in his summing up in relation to someones guilt or innocence. Summing up is basically giving advice to the jury regarding law and not advising them what verdict to arrive at. The only exception being that the jury can be instructed to formally aquit a defendant, usually on a point of law or if the judge decides that the prosecution has blatantly failed to prove its case.

In English law everyone is innocent until proven guilty, English law applies only to England and Wales. The Scottish legal system differs in many ways but the fundamental thing again is, innocent until proven guilty.

In criminal cases the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases it is sufficient merely to "prove" balance of probability.

If a jury fails to reach a majority decision after first advising the judge that they could not reach a unanimous decision, it is for the judge to say he will accept a majority verdict, then the judge will discharge the jury and either order a retrial or refer the case back to the Crown Prosecution Service. In either case it is up to the CPS whether or not to proceed with another case or drop the charges. It would probably go back to court where the defendant would be formally aquitted and in law, not have a stain on his character.

Nearly forgot, in Scottish law there are three possible verdicts, guilty, not guilty, and not proven. The last meaning everyone knows you did it but can't prove it

Answer 6

Most still have the belief in the system,and have not realized it is actually guilty until proven innocent.Logic says if not ,then why must you post a bond before your trial? Also why is America building more prisons than schools,and why do we have more people incarcerated than a country with 10 times as many people than America!

Answer 7

because the resverse is the precurser to riots and murder.
but that's a social thing.

if you're talking about the legal system, "innocent until proven guilty" is a slogan used to keep people happy.

Answer 8

dork!

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course.

Answer 9

That is the standard in the United States. The UK ceased being a free nation years ago. It is unfortunate that it happened and so many people like yourself let it happen and are proud of it.

Answer 10

It should not be either one 'neither innocent until proven guilty' or 'guilty ...'

you walk into court with a clean slate and (either one) is proven at the end