Do you think a guilty until proven innocent justice system could ever be a good thing?

JohnB445 said:

And what does the Bible say about this?

A guilty until proven innocent justice system would ensure all criminals are convicted, but at the expense of the innocent also getting convicted too. our current system tries to avoid this by making sure innocents don't get convicted at the expense that criminals walk free.

Do you think a guilty until proven innocent system could work better and make society safer?

Click to expand...

Nope. Never.

Nope. Proverbs 18:17 - "In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines."
I think this shows that it is biblical to have as fair trial.

JohnB445 said:

And what does the Bible say about this?

A guilty until proven innocent justice system would ensure all criminals are convicted, but at the expense of the innocent also getting convicted too. our current system tries to avoid this by making sure innocents don't get convicted at the expense that criminals walk free.

Do you think a guilty until proven innocent system could work better and make society safer?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we already have that system. Once a person is in the system the perception of guilt is already there. So its a matter of proving the person is innocent. In my opinion, innocent until proven guilty does not exist.
Just my thoughts on the matter.

Maria Billingsley said:

Unfortunately, we already have that system. Once a person is in the system the perception of guilt is already there. So its a matter of proving the person is innocent. In my opinion, innocent until proven guilty does not exist.
Just my thoughts on the matter.

Click to expand...

When it comes to the court of public opinion, I agree with you. That is a failing of the media. However, when it comes to the legal court, I think the process that is in place still protects the innocent, at least when it comes to the evidentiary bar that has to be crossed. Unfortunately, the way the system has developed also requires a competent lawyer and many people cannot afford that expense.

Maria Billingsley said:

Unfortunately, we already have that system. Once a person is in the system the perception of guilt is already there. So its a matter of proving the person is innocent. In my opinion, innocent until proven guilty does not exist.
Just my thoughts on the matter.

Click to expand...

I have to agree, especially considering that the process itself is effectively punishment.

I was just watching a video of a case in which the prosecution literally had no evidence whatsoever. Yet, they had charged the defendant and brought her to court on the bases that they believed the evidence existed, they just didn't have it in hand. The judge, once he had questioned the prosecution enough to realize to his own amazement that they had nothing to present, dismissed the case. Unfortunately, he dismissed it "without prejudice," meaning that if the prosecution ever found their evidence, they could charge the defendant again.

But all this time, the defendant had been put through both an emotional and financial wringer just to appear with a lawyer in court (easily $10,000) to see the case dismissed within 20 minutes.

The process is punishment, and probably often intentionally so.

JohnB445 said:

And what does the Bible say about this?

A guilty until proven innocent justice system would ensure all criminals are convicted, but at the expense of the innocent also getting convicted too. our current system tries to avoid this by making sure innocents don't get convicted at the expense that criminals walk free.

Do you think a guilty until proven innocent system could work better and make society safer?

Click to expand...

We have to remember the inequality of resources involved in the case. It's the state with all the enforcement, investigative, and judicial power of the state, all the police, all the investigators, all the crime laboratories, all the expert witnesses being paid by taxpayers...against you and your credit card. That is an inherently unfair contest.

"Innocent until proven guilty" deliberately starts the case tipped in favor of you and your credit card. At the start of the trial, the jury is supposed to see you as "That guy looks innocent to me. The prosecutor has a long way to go to convince me otherwise." That's how it's supposed to be.

Otherwise, the individuals will almost always be at the mercy of the whims of the state, because "Guilty until proven innocent" requires no evidence from the prosecution. They need do nothing but make the charge, because the starting presumption is that the defendant is guilty.