- Apr 18, 2004
- 6,759
- 122
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
I always see this rule being broken many times.
If a person is accused of doing something wrong, people are quick to believe it--especially if the person is someone that really stands out (e.g. the person is very thin/fat, very dark-skinned, very asian-looking, very unattractive, etc.). When the person being accused defends himself and says that he didn't do it, people that are quick to believe the accusation will often times ask that person, "Can you prove that?" (i.e. prove that he's innocent--the opposite of "innocent until proven guilty").
People that ask a person to prove he didn't do what someone said he did seem to have gotten the impression that it's easy to prove one's innocence. Proof arises from analyzing the consequence of a particular action; e.g. we can prove that a murder has been committed when we have a dead body and we see stab wounds on that body--that dead body is the consequence of murder, and our analysis of the body will reveal stab wounds; this analysis will enable us to prove that a murder has been committed.
It's hard to prove innocence, because there is no consequence to not doing anything. When you haven't done anything because you're innocent, then there is no consequence, which makes it hard to prove that you're innocent.
When I ask them why they immediately believe the accusation, their reason is always "People can still be trusted, right?" (i.e. when people say something bad about somebody, it must be true). Yes, people can still be trusted. That's why I immediately don't go believing every accusation I hear. People can still be trusted not to commit wrong-doings to other people; therefore, if a person is accused of doing something wrong, he should be deemed innocent until it can be proven that he is guilty.
Can people be trusted to always tell the truth, thus making every accusation true? No. People are frequent liars. People will lie to get whatever they want. If they don't like a particular person and they want to ruin that person's life, one way to do this would be through a false accusation. When I tell these people that one cannot be trusted to always tell the truth, they then say "People should be believed until it can be proven that their lying, right?" My response to them: WRONG! Not if there always exist the potential of an innocent person getting punished. Even if the accuser is telling the truth, the accuser could've mistaken the accused individual for somebody else (i.e. mistaken identity). "People should be believed until there's proof that there's a mistaken identity, right?" No, not if there always exist the potential of an innocent person getting punished.
If the accuser has witnesses to back up his claim, he should still not be believed without proof. Because, for all you know, the witnesses could be in cahoots with the accuser, and the witnesses are being false witnesses. "We should believe the witnesses until it can be proven that they're lying, right?" No.
Some people say that if a person is not punished for the accusation against him, then there is no justice. The thing is, justice is only served if the accusation is true AND the right person is punished. If the accusation is true but there is a mistaken identity, then justice is NOT served. Punishing an innocent person actually creates an INJUSTICE. Punishing a person that looks like the guilty person is NOT justice.
If we go believing every accusation we hear, this just leaves the door open for people to come in and make all sorts of false accusations; if that happens, there WILL be innocent people that will be punished for things they didn't do--this is INVITABLE. By not believing an accusation until it is proven, this ensures that no innocent person will ever get punished; it also makes a great deterrent for people not to make false accusations--if they make a false accusation, nobody will believe them unless they can prove it.
If the accusation turns out to be true but it cannot be proven, then the accuser will have to learn to forgive; this is what God wants from us anyway:
[bible]Matthew 6:14-15[/bible]
So, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has two benefits: (1) It ensures that no innocent person suffers, and (2) It forces the accuser to forgive if he cannot prove his accusation. Punishing an innocent person is wrong, and forgiving a person by not punishing him is NOT wrong. Sure, no justice was served, but there's nothing wrong with letting a person off the hook. (God will eventually provide the justice anyway.)
For those people that believe in the opposite, "guilty until proven innocent", I wish that these people would someday find themselves on the receiving end of a false accusation and they get punished for it. That way, they'll find out why to be deemed "innocent until proven guilty" is the most important right we have.
If a person is accused of doing something wrong, people are quick to believe it--especially if the person is someone that really stands out (e.g. the person is very thin/fat, very dark-skinned, very asian-looking, very unattractive, etc.). When the person being accused defends himself and says that he didn't do it, people that are quick to believe the accusation will often times ask that person, "Can you prove that?" (i.e. prove that he's innocent--the opposite of "innocent until proven guilty").
People that ask a person to prove he didn't do what someone said he did seem to have gotten the impression that it's easy to prove one's innocence. Proof arises from analyzing the consequence of a particular action; e.g. we can prove that a murder has been committed when we have a dead body and we see stab wounds on that body--that dead body is the consequence of murder, and our analysis of the body will reveal stab wounds; this analysis will enable us to prove that a murder has been committed.
It's hard to prove innocence, because there is no consequence to not doing anything. When you haven't done anything because you're innocent, then there is no consequence, which makes it hard to prove that you're innocent.
When I ask them why they immediately believe the accusation, their reason is always "People can still be trusted, right?" (i.e. when people say something bad about somebody, it must be true). Yes, people can still be trusted. That's why I immediately don't go believing every accusation I hear. People can still be trusted not to commit wrong-doings to other people; therefore, if a person is accused of doing something wrong, he should be deemed innocent until it can be proven that he is guilty.
Can people be trusted to always tell the truth, thus making every accusation true? No. People are frequent liars. People will lie to get whatever they want. If they don't like a particular person and they want to ruin that person's life, one way to do this would be through a false accusation. When I tell these people that one cannot be trusted to always tell the truth, they then say "People should be believed until it can be proven that their lying, right?" My response to them: WRONG! Not if there always exist the potential of an innocent person getting punished. Even if the accuser is telling the truth, the accuser could've mistaken the accused individual for somebody else (i.e. mistaken identity). "People should be believed until there's proof that there's a mistaken identity, right?" No, not if there always exist the potential of an innocent person getting punished.
If the accuser has witnesses to back up his claim, he should still not be believed without proof. Because, for all you know, the witnesses could be in cahoots with the accuser, and the witnesses are being false witnesses. "We should believe the witnesses until it can be proven that they're lying, right?" No.
Some people say that if a person is not punished for the accusation against him, then there is no justice. The thing is, justice is only served if the accusation is true AND the right person is punished. If the accusation is true but there is a mistaken identity, then justice is NOT served. Punishing an innocent person actually creates an INJUSTICE. Punishing a person that looks like the guilty person is NOT justice.
If we go believing every accusation we hear, this just leaves the door open for people to come in and make all sorts of false accusations; if that happens, there WILL be innocent people that will be punished for things they didn't do--this is INVITABLE. By not believing an accusation until it is proven, this ensures that no innocent person will ever get punished; it also makes a great deterrent for people not to make false accusations--if they make a false accusation, nobody will believe them unless they can prove it.
If the accusation turns out to be true but it cannot be proven, then the accuser will have to learn to forgive; this is what God wants from us anyway:
[bible]Matthew 6:14-15[/bible]
So, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has two benefits: (1) It ensures that no innocent person suffers, and (2) It forces the accuser to forgive if he cannot prove his accusation. Punishing an innocent person is wrong, and forgiving a person by not punishing him is NOT wrong. Sure, no justice was served, but there's nothing wrong with letting a person off the hook. (God will eventually provide the justice anyway.)
For those people that believe in the opposite, "guilty until proven innocent", I wish that these people would someday find themselves on the receiving end of a false accusation and they get punished for it. That way, they'll find out why to be deemed "innocent until proven guilty" is the most important right we have.
