Did you say yes? Well, of course you do. It's the American way.
Teddy Kennedy is innocent because it was not proven in court.
Michael Jackson is innocent because it was not proven in court.
O.J. is innocent of murder because it was not proven in court.
Equal justice for all.
Even, Bush. Bush is innocent, because it was not proven in court.
______________________________________...
KrazyKyngeKorny(Krazy, not stupid)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯...
2007-10-29 08:03:49 · 16 answers · asked by krazykyngekorny 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I believe that in the eyes of the law you (and all of those people) are innocent until proven guilty.
The views and words of the people do not matter as far as legality is concerned.
2007-10-29 08:18:17 · answer #1 · answered by Showtunes 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes. I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is a wise and civilized principle. If only the Bush administration had the same respect. Bush, I've noticed, has the power to have people locked away without having to charge them with a particular crime (let alone provide evidence), and as far as the chances of anyone bringing charges against him...it's a tough thing to do when all his actions and decisions are fiercely guarded secrets (national security you know), and most of the justices on the supreme court owe their careers to G.W. or his dad. Bush's axiom would have to be, "Everyone but my friends are guilty until proven innocent. My friends and I are innocent until proven guilty and I, as your commander in chief in a time of war, forbid anyone from charging any of us with a crime.". Not nearly as elegant is it?
2007-10-29 08:44:48 · answer #2 · answered by socrates 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I do believe in the presumption of innocence.
But that is just an empty phrase in our judicial system. Because most people cannot afford an attorney to adequately defend them.
Public Defenders tell most defendants to plead guilty because they are too lazy or do not have adequate resources to mount a defense.
90 percent of all cases are plea bargained and never go to trial. Some of the people who plea bargain are actually innocent, but they follow the advice of an ill prepared public defender.
So justice is not always served in our judicial system.
But I do not care about George Bush, the only reason he is still in office is because they do not have the numbers to impeach him.
He is a horrible President.
2007-10-29 14:32:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Heck no! If someone is pulled over for drunk driving and a cop gives the person sobriety tests and fails. That is being proven guilty right there. I don't see why they have to prove it yet again in court. They just get off. The American Criminal Justice System Sucks!
2007-10-29 08:18:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
LEGALLY, a person needs to be proven guilty. But people do have OPINIONS. In my OPINION, OJ killed his wife and her friend, even though the courts found him not guilty.
And because the courts find someone not guilty does not mean they didn't actually commit the crime. It just means the prosecution couldn't produce enough evidence to prove the guilt.
2007-10-29 08:11:20 · answer #5 · answered by Mutt 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes, and Bush what? What would be proven in court for Bush, did I miss him being charged with a crime ?
2007-10-29 08:07:03 · answer #6 · answered by booman17 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The belief in guilt before proven innocent is a trademark of governments who tyrranize over their people and demand the freedom to accuse whomever they want whenever they want and use the power of government to place them in a jail cell where they must begin proving their case without access to any materials.
Oh, wait. By your logic, Bush and Cheney and his entire cabinet (including Rumsfeld) are all innocent of all crimes because even when the have appeared in a court, the court found no cause to punish.
(But liberals believe they should be impeached anyway, and they waste no time with idiotic rants of "traitor" and "baby killer", even to the point where they will make up fictional evidence against them.)
2007-10-29 08:06:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Michael Jackson is innocent because he didn't do it!
â¥We Love You MJâ¥
2007-10-29 15:34:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i am familiar with the court cases of ted, mike and OJ which proved "within a reasonable doubt" that they were innocent.
when did Bush and Co. go to court to determine their innocence or guilt?
2007-10-29 08:10:31 · answer #9 · answered by Free Radical 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I believe that is the way it should be. But anyone with a brain knows that is not always the case; otherwise, people would not be held on bond or in jail until their trial is complete.
2007-10-29 08:08:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋