Why do we say that someone is innocent before proven guilty?

Question

Anyone could have another innocent person arrested and treated like a criminal before the person is proven innocent in a court of law. Isn't that a contradiction?

Answer 1

Because you are not sentenced until you are proven guilty.
There are many reasons why a person is arrested when they are accused of a crime. The biggest reason should be accountability by the government. If you saw someone commit a serious crime and you called the cops and they did nothing. And then the person committed another crime, you'd be angry at the cops for not doing anything. It sucks but someone's got to bite the bullet and hopefully it's the rightfully accused who sits in jail waiting for his day in court. Can't go letting criminals walk around committing crimes because you are afraid to arrest the wrong person. Thats not fair to the rest of society.

Answer 2

First of all, no, you can't just have anyone arrested. There has to be some type of evidence. That is, a woman that has bruises, black eyes, etc.. has evidence of assault/battery. If a person's house is broken into, and they see the person running away, then that is good reason to arrest that person, or alcohol odor coming from a driver....all reasons to arrest, because there is enough 'pretrial' evidence/probable cause.

If we say 'Guilty until Proven' it becomes 'Victim Justice'...and we don't have that in the US. I am not qualified to state which way is better, though, I am inclined to believe Criminal Justice works best. We have the world's best Criminal System, and though it may fail sometimes, most of the time it does not. It is developed by humans, and humans err, whether they are cops, attorneys, judges, etc... humans make mistakes---no matter how well they know the law. And, laws are often changed because a 'better way' is discovered. DNA is, indeed, a great example of how things change...and for the better.

Habeas Corpus, The Right to a Fair Trial(basically) is a great thing, it allows evidence to be gathered, witnesses to be questioned, fines and penalties to be imposed should perjury or obstruction of justice occur. It gives time to question a jury of one's peers, or even find the 'real' criminal. There is so much detail involved in what you ask, but, I hope you don't just stop asking, because learning about our countries laws, and how the country works, will also help you to become a more informed citizen and voter.

Answer 3

Well, no, not anyone can get someone arrested.

The police must determine if there's enough evidence to charge someone; the Crown (or DA in the States) must determine if there's enough evidence to form the legal definition of that crime and proceed with charges; a judge has to decide if there's enough evidence to go to trial.

It's rare that a case wholly lacking evidence would actually get to trial, and even if it does, the accused, once found not guilty, can file a civil claim against the person who made the false allegations.

Besides, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" simply means it is on the onus of the Crown to prove that an offense took place, beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused doesn't really have to prove anything, if there's no evidence.

Answer 4

That's true. I think that false accusations are way underpunished in the US. A murderer or rapist can go to jail for life, but someone who falsely accuses someone of rape or murder only goes to jail for 6 months and pays a 2000 fine.

That's why there is a grand jury. The thing is, no matter how false the claim is, and no matter how soon the accused is acquitted, his or her reputation will never be the same again in the public eye. The case has to go to the grand jury first, and they decide whether the evidence remotely suggests that a crime may have been committed. If not, the case is not publicized. If so, the case proceeds to trial.

Trial by media sucks. People always remember the accused as, "Oh, that's the guy who was accused of______." That's why people who make false complaints should be more severely punished.

I'm very much against the Rape Shield Law. It's unfair to name the accused and not the accuser. Perfect examples include the Duke Lacrosse case and the Kobe Bryant case.

Answer 5

Generally there must be some sort of charges brought up before someone in order to be held, and if not, they may have legal grounds to sue.

Think about it this way, if this were not the case, when someone is charged with a crime, you could lock them up in stocks (aka a pillory) and throw tomatoes at them until their trial. It gives us the due process of law, including bail (if you weren't innocent until proven guilty than you wouldn't be able to ever leave the jailhouse), and public defenders (or defense attorneys at all).

Granted, in our society, often when a person is arrested, we assume that they did something wrong. But that is only because many people choose to believe everything they read , see or hear in the media (even though they may not have all the facts), and are quick to assume the worst in people.

Answer 6

"Innocent until proven guilty" only means that the burden of proof is on the accuser. If I claim you did something wrong, it's my responsibility to prove that you did it. Imagine that I accused you of a crime and that to have committed that crime, you must have been at a particular place at a particular time. If I can't show that you were there, then you should be found innocent. You don't have to prove where you were.

The idea of presumption of innocence is one of our most important legal protections. It is so fundamental and in our society, so self-evident that we often forget that there are countries where a person accused of a crime has the burden of proving that he did nothing wrong. That's especially difficult to do when you've been accused of something vague such as "counter-revolutionary activity."

In the US system of law, the underlying assumption is "that which is not forbidden is permitted." In other words, you're innocent of a crime unless you're doing something the law says you can't. In less free countries, the assumption is "that which is not permitted is forbidden." If you're doing something - anything - that you law doesn't specifically say you can do, then you're guilty of something.

As you might expect, in free countries the foundation of the legal system usually rests on the ideas "innocent until proven guilty" and "that which is not forbidden is permitted."

Answer 7

No it is not a contradiction. How would you like it to be the other way? How would you like to be innocent and CONVICTED because you could not prove you were innocent? An arrest is not the same as a conviction, it merely means that you have been charged with a crime. By the way, if a citizen arrested you, and it was later determined this person arrested you out of malice with no proof of your guilt, you could sue that person for false arrest.

Answer 8

What that really means is that the burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the prosecution. If the evidence is inconclusive and nobody can prove anything, the defendant is not supposed to be convicted. If people were presumed guilty until proven innocent, then anyone who was accused of a crime would be convicted unless they could prove they didn't do it.

Answer 9

Actually, yes that is correct, except legally they are innocent until guilt is proven, people tend to judge them as guilty upon being accused. The general public is very quick to find immediate guilt when a person is accused of certain violations, but, unless the court has the evidence, and the jury or judge finds a person guilty, they are basically innocent in a legal sense

Answer 10

No-one is 'proved innocent' in a court of law; it's not required that innocence should be proved, it's automatically assumed unless guilt can be proved. If guilt can't be proved,that person is legally innocent, and always was.

Someone accused of a crime can be arrested and remanded in custody, while the charges are investigated, but that person is not considered guilty of anything until the charges are proved.