DEBATE: Guilty until proven innocent when it comes to putting people in prison

[JohnB445]

Opening up a debate about this topic. In no way shape or form does the topic represent my views, as in matter of fact I have no opinion. I'm curious how others on this forum view this topic.

The new emerging philosophy of Guilty until proven innocent is:
That is extremely rare to be falsely accused and prison is not that bad of a place compared to trauma victims of crimes face, that sending a couple innocent people to prison is a price society should be willing to pay and it is ultimately for the greater good.

And by Guilty Until Proven innocent, I'm not talking about lowering the burden of proof, I'm talking about testimony being the only thing that is needed for a conviction unless the testimony is proven to be maliciously false.

What are your views when it comes to this?

 

[JustOneWay]

Opening up a debate about this topic. In no way shape or form does the topic represent my views, as in matter of fact I have no opinion. I'm curious how others on this forum view this topic.

The new emerging philosophy of Guilty until proven innocent is:
That is extremely rare to be falsely accused and prison is not that bad of a place compared to trauma victims of crimes face, that sending a couple innocent people to prison is a price society should be willing to pay and it is ultimately for the greater good.

And by Guilty Until Proven innocent, I'm not talking about lowering the burden of proof, I'm talking about testimony being the only thing that is needed for a conviction unless the testimony is proven to be maliciously false.

What are your views when it comes to this?

Please point out at least a couple of instances where an innocent person has been sent to prison before they were convicted, found guilty and sentenced to prison.

 

[JohnB445]

Please point out at least a couple of instances where an innocent person has been sent to prison before they were convicted, found guilty and sentenced to prison.

I don't think you understood.
I have no opinion on what system should be in place.

1. People are not sent to prison before conviction only after the conviction. Jail and Prison are 2 completely different things.

As for the last part, that is of no concern in modern day society. Innocent people do not have to worry about that happening under our current system.

The topic of this debate is switching to a Guilty until proven innocent system when it comes to putting people in prison.

 

[Pommer]

Opening up a debate about this topic. In no way shape or form does the topic represent my views, as in matter of fact I have no opinion. I'm curious how others on this forum view this topic.

The new emerging philosophy of Guilty until proven innocent is:
That is extremely rare to be falsely accused and prison is not that bad of a place compared to trauma victims of crimes face, that sending a couple innocent people to prison is a price society should be willing to pay and it is ultimately for the greater good.

And by Guilty Until Proven innocent, I'm not talking about lowering the burden of proof, I'm talking about testimony being the only thing that is needed for a conviction unless the testimony is proven to be maliciously false.

What are your views when it comes to this?

Opinions as to guilt/innocence are fine & dandy.
The standard of “innocent until/unless proven guilty” is a matter for the courts, but we can still opine if this (or that) person is “guilty” (or not).

 

[JustOneWay]

The topic of this debate is switching to a Guilty until proven innocent system when it comes to putting people in prison.

This is not happening, and won't as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land.. I asked for examples of where this is happening, but I probably won't get any examples. I am not a fan of debates based on hypothetical arguments....

 

[Mayzoo]

Proving a negative ("I did NOT commit the crime") can be difficult and sometimes impossible. I do not believe this to be a viable, broad-scope model.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Opening up a debate about this topic. In no way shape or form does the topic represent my views, as in matter of fact I have no opinion. I'm curious how others on this forum view this topic.

The new emerging philosophy of Guilty until proven innocent is:
That is extremely rare to be falsely accused and prison is not that bad of a place compared to trauma victims of crimes face, that sending a couple innocent people to prison is a price society should be willing to pay and it is ultimately for the greater good.

And by Guilty Until Proven innocent, I'm not talking about lowering the burden of proof, I'm talking about testimony being the only thing that is needed for a conviction unless the testimony is proven to be maliciously false.

What are your views when it comes to this?

IMHO, I'm not so sure it is a " new philosophy ", unfortunately. The media certainly pushes this type of thinking by influencing jury pools. This is why many high profile cases need to be tried out of the area because, in the hearts of jurors, they have difficulty sticking to" innocent until proven guilty".
Blessings.

 

[durangodawood]

...I'm talking about testimony being the only thing that is needed for a conviction unless the testimony is proven to be maliciously false.
....

How do you prove the testimony against you was maliciously false when youre in prison?

And what is the disincentive against providing false testimony?

 

[DaisyDay]

Please point out at least a couple of instances where an innocent person has been sent to prison before they were convicted, found guilty and sentenced to prison.

Not prison but jail. Innocent people languish in jail while awaiting trial if they can't afford bail.

This can cost them their jobs, their apartments/houses, cars (behind in payments get repossessed), children. If a single parent is arrested and can't afford bail, then chances are excellent the parent will take a guilty plea just to get out and keep their life intact.

 

[JustOneWay]

Not prison but jail. Innocent people languish in jail while awaiting trial if they can't afford bail.

This can cost them their jobs, their apartments/houses, cars (behind in payments get repossessed), children. If a single parent is arrested and can't afford bail, then chances are excellent the parent will take a guilty plea just to get out and keep their life intact.

Jails are for those are still innocent until proven guilty. If they were already guilty, off to prison they go until they can figure out how to prove their innocence. Who needs holding cells if they are already guilty?

 

[Diamond7]

Guilty until proven innocent

It is very difficult getting a conviction, so they spend a lot of time trying to get a confession. If they think someone is guilty they will set them up. So a lot of people are innocent of the charges but perhaps they still need to be there because of a pattern of crime.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Good grief! What is it with this board. We've got a poster pushing the idea that only those who don't receive net payments from the government should be allowed to vote. A presidential candidate who wants to exclude voters under 25. And now we have a complete inversion of the whole system of criminal jurisprudence and burden of proof. Does no one understand American legal and civic principles?

 

[Pommer]

Good grief! What is it with this board. We've got a poster pushing the idea that only those who don't receive net payments from the government should be allowed to vote. A presidential candidate who wants to exclude voters under 25. And now we have a complete inversion of the whole system of criminal jurisprudence and burden of proof. Does no one understand American legal and civic principles?

Time to blame the schools again?

 

[Arcangl86]

I mean often in practice it is guilty until proven innocent since people usually can't afford bail or get denied bail all the time.

 

[Aaron112]

I mean often in practice it is guilty until proven innocent since people usually can't afford bail or get denied bail all the time.

Yes, true, too often. Bail makers, who make money posting other people's bonds or bail, I saw persuade a judge or judges to create more bail money, to keep more people in jail unless they paid bail, when many of the instances involved the people were no flight risk, and it was too frequently for petty things like having a ticket for a dog being outside not on a leash! The bail people claimed it hurt their livelihood if the judge(s) did not require bail, NOT that the ones who would need bail were risks at all, but only for more money to the money hungry...

 

[Aaron112]

Time to blame the schools again?

When was it time to stop blaming the schools ?

 

[Aaron112]

Jails are for those are still innocent until proven guilty. If they were already guilty, off to prison they go until they can figure out how to prove their innocence. Who needs holding cells if they are already guilty?

If they are quilty, their laywrs usually , or often?, get them out within a few hours ... eh?
It is the innocent who cannot afford the laywrs pretty often....

 

[Pommer]

If they are quilty, their laywrs usually , or often?, get them out within a few hours ... eh?
It is the innocent who cannot afford the laywrs pretty often....

Maybe a blanket pardon is in the works for those found quilty?

 

[keith99]

This is not happening, and won't as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land.. I asked for examples of where this is happening, but I probably won't get any examples. I am not a fan of debates based on hypothetical arguments....

Well that was the French system under Napoleonic law and the Dreyfus affair is a rather famous case.

 

[Aaron112]

Maybe a blanket pardon is in the works for those found quilty?

Like the war criminal scientists around 70 to 90 years ago - hired or used by russia and usa to continue neafarious things that harm multitudes today , ever since then ?