Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

[MrDawn]

Do you think it should be the other way around? How about Guilty until Proven Innocent?

Casey Anthony was obviously guilty, refused plea bargains, and still walked after the murder of her own daughter. How about OJ Simpson?

 

[FriendlyPerson]

Do you think it should be the other way around? How about Guilty until Proven Innocent?

Casey Anthony was obviously guilty, refused plea bargains, and still walked after the murder of her own daughter. How about OJ Simpson?

That is more or less reality actuality speaking. If your in the wrong place, at the wrong time and/or with the wrong people then you are at high stakes to be put into the slammer. Even if yourself was didn't do the crime(s) and/or was not involved in the act(s).

Felony Murder is a prime example of this. Saying that if you have a connection to the murder earns you this murder charges placed on you as if you were the guy pulling the trigger, the gate away drive or other "highly involved" actors of the crime.

 

[Demon_skeith]

This is kind of the on going issue these days, someone so much as gets pinned with any crime and their life is pretty much over.

 

[Kylie]

How about Guilty until Proven Innocent?

The problem with that is no guilt can be affixed to a person until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed the offence they are charged with.

 

[Laifot]

Do you think it should be the other way around? How about Guilty until Proven Innocent?

Casey Anthony was obviously guilty, refused plea bargains, and still walked after the murder of her own daughter. How about OJ Simpson?

How can you blame someone if you're not 100% sure about it? Innocent until proven guilty forever!

 

[FriendlyPerson]

How can you blame someone if you're not 100% sure about it? Innocent until proven guilty forever!

Agrees but the judicial system really needs to be working upon this because it's like the other way around as expressed in this thread.

Even if you done nothing wrong and etc if you are in the wrong place, at the wrong time and with the wrong people you could very well be charged for the crime(s) too.

For instance say that your friend picked you up from the gas station and offered you chips. Cops pull your party over and said the chips were stolen. Guess what? Not only your friend will be charged but probably you too, even if you didn't know if the bag was stolen or not.

 

[Laifot]

Agrees but the judicial system really needs to be working upon this because it's like the other way around as expressed in this thread.

Even if you done nothing wrong and etc if you are in the wrong place, at the wrong time and with the wrong people you could very well be charged for the crime(s) too.

For instance say that your friend picked you up from the gas station and offered you chips. Cops pull your party over and said the chips were stolen. Guess what? Not only your friend will be charged but probably you too, even if you didn't know if the bag was stolen or not.

Yeah, but maybe that's the first impressions that the cops might get but consider that the situation could be taped and they'll see that you didn't do it and release you.. i always think that until the process is over everybody should cooperate.. obviously depends on the situation, if it's a murder case then it must be different.

 

[Zap]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not a perfect system, and there will always be some cases where guilty perpetrators being set free, but I can guarantee you that there would be loads more cases of innocent people getting imprisoned if we switched it around. Sure, you might have better odds of jailing the bad guys, but by effect you'd also imprison loads and loads of innocent people. The result is a police state a la the Soviet Union or Nazi, which simply is not worth it.

 

[FriendlyPerson]

Yeah, but maybe that's the first impressions that the cops might get but consider that the situation could be taped and they'll see that you didn't do it and release you..

Well it shouldn't be that way is what I am getting at. They should just review the tape first then arrest the person(s) they should be arresting.

Stealing a bag of Lay's isn't a crime scheme worth arresting people you purely "suspects".

 

[Laifot]

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not a perfect system, and there will always be some cases where guilty perpetrators being set free, but I can guarantee you that there would be loads more cases of innocent people getting imprisoned if we switched it around. Sure, you might have better odds of jailing the bad guys, but by effect you'd also imprison loads and loads of innocent people. The result is a police state a la the Soviet Union or Nazi, which simply is not worth it.

If it's the other way around, at least the persecuted need to get some compensation for being imprisoned. the State or country might lose tons of money as well.