Given the public's reaction to the Duke lacrosse case, Michael Vick (even though he admitted his guilt later), and now with O.J. Simpson, have we, as a nation, forgotten that all alleged criminals are to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
In all of these cases, the accused are (or were) immediately labelled as guilty before setting foot in a courtroom.
Especially in the case of the Duke lacrosse players, the public outcry to see the young men jailed for a crime, that it turned out they never committed, was overwhelming. Those three young men were kicked out of school and presumed guilty because of an unsubstantiated story about how they raped a stripper. Granted, in this case the truth was found out and they were released, but not before their lives were ruined by Mike Nifong and Rev. Al Sharpton.
So have we forgotten "Innocent until proven guilty" in today's society and instead gone to a "guilty until proven innocent" mind-frame?
2007-11-28 15:11:48 · 7 answers · asked by Professor Farnsworth 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The only people required to presume a suspect to be innocent until proven guilty are the jury that hear his case.
The public have always frequently presumed people to be guilty based on what the press reports, even when - again and again - the media is found to have been totally wrong.
A perfect example of that is the four black teenagers convicted in New York of raping and nearly killing the "Central Park Jogger" some years ago. The press had them convicted and hung and their crimes blazed all over the front pages of the papers before the trial even started.
Faced with the virtual certainty of convictions and life without parole sentences, and with each of the four told, separately, that the other three had already confessed, they all confessed in exchange for reduced sentences.
After they'd spent years in prison, DNA evidence proved that they'd never been involved at all, and their convictions were overturned.
The link below discusses the case in detail, including looking at why so many cases where a convicted man is later proven innocent involve false confessions.
Richard
2007-11-28 15:59:50 · answer #1 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Simply put, no. You are inaccurate on several counts.
First of all, the phrase is "Presumed innocent until proven guilty." Big difference.
Second of all, that is a LEGAL presumption, not a societal obligation.
If you want to tout a cause, consider championing free speech. And get your Constitutional principles, legal presumptions, and overall sociological ideologies in order before your next trip up onto your soap box.
2007-11-28 15:18:17 · answer #2 · answered by snoopy 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It just means you have a right to bail. Some countries you don't have the right to bail . flight risk. You probably realize that the police are probably talking to a lawyer on the other end of the conversation. When they arrest you . You can bet they have a good case against you. Because false arrest are the highest paying law suits The best thing they could do for you is a false imprisonment. You just keep you mouth shut and wait for the money.
2007-11-28 15:33:53 · answer #3 · answered by Robertus911 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Innocent until proven guilty is used for the court system. It is not that way in the court of public opinion and never has been.
2007-11-28 15:17:30 · answer #4 · answered by Downriver Dave 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The US doesn't use "Innocent until proven guilty", it uses "Guilty until you are proven guilty, at which point you are guilty"
2007-11-28 15:58:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
innocent until proven guilty is retarded, so many killers walk free . they should have a law called "guilty if obviously guilty" and oj simpson deserved to be locked for life.
2007-11-28 15:14:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
King George killed that by Presidential decree...
2007-11-28 15:23:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋