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.

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...

This is an interesting dilemma. In Australia under the National Rugby League code of conduct. A player who was involved in a criminal matter that exceeded a certain penalty in seriousness. Would be stood down from playing until the matter was settled.

In other words whether guilty or not just by being associated with such an incident they would be deemed like guilty and penalised by losing game time. In some situations the player was unable to play the majority of the season and then was later found not guilty.

This is especially a controversial; decision because most of the issues that players faced were associated with DV or allegations of misconduct with the opposite sex. Which in itself is sometimes the cause of false allegations.

In saying that I can understand that to allowplayers to continue to play can run into problems. The league may have a weekend dedicated to women and have a player facing DV or abuse against women playing on that weekend.

Its a hard one.

But generally I think innocent until proven guilty is closer to Christ. It allows grace and forgiveness. Whereas I think the other way around negates these. Even if it claims some sort of good in that it will prevent harm or something like that.

This is often the guise to sneak in the evil. I think what we are seeing now with the willingness to condemn and even use violence against others because of their beliefs or what they may have said once in their life. Is from a place of deeming people guilty before they are proven so.

Except its deeming certain beliefs and words that people say as guilty because it disagrees with what they think is good. But I think it comes from the same place. Or can easily become the same. Which shows that only through Christ can we truely love and know truth.

Thats more like a Pharisee than Christ.

Nope. I have no faith in the political/judicial system that they would ever spend the time to prove the innocence of someone they want to silence or get rid of. The burden of proof would be on the shoulders of the accused rather than the government that wants to put them away.

dogs4thewin said:

I do not think that guilty until proven innocent would be good AT ALL. Moreover, claiming that this would ensure every guilty person would be convicted is not right either as money can often buy freedom. Even if it could not there is NO way to catch every guilty person and if someone was convicted that did not do it then the guilty would still go free. In other words, not only would guilty until proven innocent be wrong but the idea that it would ensure every guilty person would be convicted is also incorrect

Click to expand...

There is a scene in Star Wars: Andor where a group of people are being lined up before an Imperial firing squad. A townsperson explained that a storm trooper had been killed by a sniper some time earlier and ".... they keep finding people who did it."