Guilty until proven, or innocent until proven guilty?
By SomeCowgirl
@SomeCowgirl (32189)
United States
August 19, 2008 3:31pm CST
I mean, okay, I want to ask everyone a few questions about this. I'd really like answers from people that have the whole "guilty until innocent" standard of law in their country. Over 'ere in the US of A we have the innocent until proven guilty standard and I really can't say which one I agree with. Being guilty until proven innocent, okay so that makes you think "what about all those people who are really innocent but are proven guilty?" okay but here in America it's "who's free when they should be in jail?" It's really twisted, but going back to throwing stones just wouldn't work... So, what do you all think?
I mean which is better, and why? Give me some idea of what you think, i'd really like an input on which is better. Give me supporting evidence though, oh and any cases of guilty until proven innocent would be great, i'd love to read about those. I appreciate the responses.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@poona_m (336)
• India
20 Aug 08
I don't think having one of the two ways is gonna help a lot in any law system. I believe the rule should be conditional. that is for a set of crimes it should be innocent until proven guilty and for the rest of the crimes it should be guilty until proven innocent.
Lets first talk about guilty until proven innocent. Would you like to send your kid to school in a school bus driven by a man who is accused of being a child molester? I don't think so. I believe in crimes that have been really hurting the society like rape, serial murders, physical abuse, marital abuse, terrorism etc the law should take the guilty until proven innocent path. This would at least ensure that if the suspect is actually guilty then the suspect should not get a chance to continue doing the crime till he is proven guilty.
The innocent until proven guilty could be applied to petty crimes like shoplifting, car theft etc where actually no one is being hurt emotionally or physically. These kind of crimes are not as severe on the society as some that I mentioned for the other rule. Even if the suspect is free till he/she is proven guilty it will not be a big threat to the society.
But again it could be a topic of debate as to which crime should be featuring under which rule.
1 person likes this
@SomeCowgirl (32189)
• United States
21 Aug 08
Under either set of paths that are always possibilities of innocence. A man accused of rape or child molestation could be completely innocent but cleverly framed. A man who was charged for car theft could have disposed of a body in the trunk of the car he had stolen, and he could be a great stain remover expert. Who's to say? Although I do like your idea and respect it, I still have to say "look out for the innocent, they might just be guilty" or "The quiet ones are the ones you have to watch out for" Theft and shoplifting are quiet crimes as you hardly hear them on the news, but rape and child molestation are often broadcasted... I appreciate the response, I hope that you have a wonderful and lovely day.
@sugarplum9084 (1771)
• United States
19 Aug 08
I'm a law nut, and I firmly believe in innocent until proven guilty. When you are guilty before proven innocent everyone has a bias and is more like to say you are guilty, and also, when they treat you like you are guilty, though it is not proven, how is it right that they can do that? With that standard people would not get off as easily if they are innocent. Coffin v. United States was the case that gave America the presumption of innocence. Though innocence before proven guilty is in favor of the accused, it is better than it being in favor of the court. That accused individual represents society in a way, because we can easily be in that position, and you want the society to be favored, not the big shots with all the power, it is good that our law is in most cases in favor of the regular man, like us. Another case is Gideon v. Wainwright, which made it possible for those who could not afford lawyers able to get public defenders. Everyone presumed that he was guilty because he could not defend himself like a witty lawyer would have, so they sentenced him to prison for five years and he was completely innocent, though it was appealed and he was proven innocent. Even though America does have this core value, most Americans do not believe it like they should, because for one thing, when you see a man in a jumpsuit and handcuffs entering a court what do you think? You think, "what did he do!" not "what was he accused of?" I wish we would follow our own values more, but as long as the court does I am happy, though we change the court not the other way around.
1 person likes this
@SomeCowgirl (32189)
• United States
21 Aug 08
I agree that the accused represents society as they can set a new law or trend for our country. Such as in the cases you have exampled, and other cases that have allowed our laws to be changed and more favorable and fair. I do remember learning about these cases in school but I do think that Gideon Vs Wainright was one of the one's I like the most as it allowed a new era of fairness in court and law. One thing that struck home for me in your response was the example of a man in a jumpsuit and handcuffs "What did he do?" is usually the first thing that comes to mind. However for a female, the thought is different. I can't say that I think "What was she accused of? Even though I know I have thought that, but I also usually think something along the lines of how vile this women must be to be put into courts. Or how wrong she was to have committed the crime she had. I would much rather have favor for the accused though, as the accused often set examples for those of us who have not committed crimes and for those us who have been in defense. I appreciate the response to me. I hope you have a wonderful and lovely day.
