Guilty until proven innocent

[Introverted1293]

When someone gets accused of sexual misconduct, or child molestation, why do we immediately assume that person is guilty? And before trial why are they still in a county jail if they are innocent until proven guilty?

They are still treated as though they are guilty before they are proven innocent so that whole innocent until proven guilty seems a little ridiculous.

 

[section9+1]

That principle only applies in the courtroom. Nowhere else.

 

[GeorgeJ]

When someone gets accused of sexual misconduct, or child molestation, why do we immediately assume that person is guilty? And before trial why are they still in a county jail if they are innocent until proven guilty?

They are still treated as though they are guilty before they are proven innocent so that whole innocent until proven guilty seems a little ridiculous.

"Innocent until proven guilty" in the eyes of the law is why they have a trial to prove their guilt or innocence. In the eyes of the public they might appear guilty, and that can't be helped. Especially in today's world where the media tells only part of the story (usually the bad parts). The full story usually doesn't come out until the trial.

If they're in county jail, it means they have been accused and the sheriff had enough evidence to arrest. If the bail is set, and they can't make bail, then they stay in jail.

 

[RDKirk]

That principle only applies in the courtroom. Nowhere else.

A lot of people aren't aware it's supposed to apply in the courtroom.

I talk to people all the time who believe that the jury should view the defendant and the prosecutor in a balanced and unbiased fashion.

That's wrong.

The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" asserts that the jury should be biased initially toward the innocence of the defendant until and unless the prosecution is able to prove otherwise. The jurors should look at the defendant at the start of the trial and say, "That looks like an innocent man to me. Somebody had better have a good explanation for having him here."

 

[Introverted1293]

Well, that's very informative. I didn't know that.

 

[bhsmte]

When someone gets accused of sexual misconduct, or child molestation, why do we immediately assume that person is guilty? And before trial why are they still in a county jail if they are innocent until proven guilty?

They are still treated as though they are guilty before they are proven innocent so that whole innocent until proven guilty seems a little ridiculous.

Public opinion has zero to do with what happens in a legal proceeding.

Some folks are held in jail, because of a potential risk to the public and or they couldn't make bail.

 

[Nithavela]

The really bad part is that even after someone is being judged innocent in court, public opinion might still judge him guilty.

 

[Introverted1293]

The really bad part is that even after someone is being judged innocent in court, public opinion might still judge him guilty.

Agreed

 

[zephcom]

The really bad part is that even after someone is being judged innocent in court, public opinion might still judge him guilty.

It is also important to understand that being acquitted by a jury does NOT also mean the person being charged did not commit the crime. It only means the prosecution did not present a case that rose to the level necessary to convict.

If the public is still convinced the person actually did the crime even if the prosecution did not or could not present sufficient evidence to convict under the law, the public is under no obligation to treat the person as if they didn't commit the crime.

A good example of that is the O.J. Simpson case. The prosecution failed in their attempt to meet the standards set by the law for conviction but there probably are no more than a handful of people in the nation who doesn't believe he killed those people simply because the jury didn't convict him.

Our justice system is not perfect.

 

[RDKirk]

Our justice system is not perfect.

Which direction do you want the imperfection to be slanted?

 

[zephcom]

Which direction do you want the imperfection to be slanted?

How I would prefer the imperfection be slanted has nothing at all to do with validity of the statement that our justice system isn't perfect.

The reality is that the imperfections are many. Some are 'slanted' in ways I prefer, some are slanted in ways I don't prefer. In the example I cited, I wasn't upset that Simpson was not convicted. I was a bit upset that the prosecution didn't seem to be able to present a convincing case to the court.

But that is our system, the prosecution gets one chance to convict. If they fail and the jury acquits, that is the end of the issue.

 

[RDKirk]

How I would prefer the imperfection be slanted has nothing at all to do with validity of the statement that our justice system isn't perfect.

The reality is that the imperfections are many. Some are 'slanted' in ways I prefer, some are slanted in ways I don't prefer.

So what is the way you prefer?

 

[zephcom]

So what is the way you prefer?

Assumption of innocence until convicted.

 

[Tayla]

In the eyes of the public they might appear guilty, and that can't be helped. Especially in today's world where the media tells only part of the story (usually the bad parts). The full story usually doesn't come out until the trial.

Yes, the law can't make people believe one way or another.