"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, under national or international law, at the time it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offense was committed." In plan language, a defendant should be considered innocent until it can be proved that he/she is guilty. If they are accused of a crime, he/she should always have the right to defend themselves. Nobody has the right to condemn a person and punish them for something they have not done. The purpose of this paper is to explore the long debated question of, "Does/Should the 'system' try to prove the defendant guilty?" This paper will visit theories of innocence until proven guilty vs.
guilty until proven innocent. In the United States of America, an accused party is to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty." Notice that the word presumed stands out in that sentence. As per Webster's dictionary, the word presumed means: to take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary: (e.g. we presumed she was innocent).
Even though the credo of the Untied States is stated as innocent until proven guilty, criminal defendants are undeniably presumed to be guilty, it is for this reason that they are arrested and kept in pre-trial detention or released on bail, bond, or their own recognizance before a trial. If there was no presumption of guilt on the prosecutor's part, there would be...
No the real rule is emotions sentiments and biases If we want innocent until proven guilty to become true we need professional juries
The reason it doesn't work is that we use a "jury of your peers". So a bunch of people with no legal knowledge or training and only a brief overview before the trial get to decide the verdict. They do not have an adequate education to know how to filter their biases in order to truly know what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means. They do not have an adequate education to know how to think about and process all the information in the trial. What's worse is that in many states it is illegal for jurors to take notes during a trial. Whose idea was that? How are jurors supposed to render a valid verdict without being able to take notes?
We should have a professional jury, you should go to college and then you can become a juror, and jurors should be able to take notes and ask questions during the trial.
Biased based on race
There's always a pre-disposition in the court system based on race and socioeconomic situation of the suspected criminal. It's sad but true. However, when it comes to a well off white man on trial the statement 'innocent until proven guilty' is true. When a minority is on trial the statement doesn't apply.
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
This is a right that I would definitely say is often forgotten due to the media and how it alienates people and leaves the public believing every single word that the media is telling them. This right is one that really is not enforced even in the court room, although the law may say we are all innocent until proven guilty in court it almost seems like it is the opposite, you are guilty until proven innocent.
No We Do Not
I believe anyone who thinks we still live by the rule, "innocent until proven guilty," is a fool. I know of one person who spent time in jail because they didn't fully understand that often judgment is passed first and you're left to prove your innocents. I believe if you examine any breaking crime you will see a borage of finger pointing.
Not really true.
Innocent until prove guilty is a principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and, relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence. Think about it if you don't do any wrong and cops, government assume you are you usually get in trouble or arrested right away then as they arrest you they read you your Miranda rights. I think that when government says this saying it should mean what its meant. Words of government should not be switched around.
OJ Simpson proved this false
How many hundreds of innocent people went to prison because of a corrupt and racist LAPD? And nobody cared. The acquittal of an obviously guilty person was what it finally took for the system to begin worrying about its flaws. We reached the opposite end of the spectrum our forefathers envisioned. It used to be "better 10 guilty go free before one innocent is convicted." Now it's "It will take the guilty going free before we will worry about wrongfully convicting the innocent."
I have some experience in the criminal justice system (no, not that kind). It ain't Law and Order. 99% of the cases are something along the lines of: guy with expired tags gets pulled over, has 10 warrants and an outstanding probation violation so he gets arrested and the cops find a bunch of meth in the trunk when they impound the car. The simple fact is there is absolutely no question the person who got arrested is guilty AT LEAST 9 times out of 10, so expecting people to pretend that's not the case, while great on paper, just isn't going to happen.
Many do not do this.
For example, when arresting someone, police talk to them as if they commited it.
Sometimes people are un-justly arrested. It is however a good system to live by. For example, If someone is accused of murder, and he turns out innocent, what should the police do then? It is un-just.
In particularly due to the media, we often forget this rule.
With the way society deals with criminal injustice today, our media often rules a verdict before the justice system has. Whether through ignorance or not, many people pick up the morning paper, or scroll through their twitter news feed, their minds soaking up the information being fed to them, without stopping to question what they are being told. They read of a person being held trial for murder? Their thoughts are of HOW they WILL be punished, not IF they SHOULD be punished.
There is no justice for men. Many men have been wrongly convicted. The argument about a woman scorned and the need for money is strong.
If a woman accuses a man of assault in this day and age he is assumed guilty, even if it is only her word against his, he will be convicted and his life ruined. There used to have to be some form of witness, not any more. The police have even said if a woman comes forward she will be believed. If you are a male celebrity you stand no chance. This is not justice as we used to know it. In fact it is not justice at all. Someone can even be convicted after twenty or thirty years with no proof whatsoever.L
Well we actually...
Lock them up in jail until they are proven to be innocent so no but we do live by the whole "Everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law ." because we do listen to them and use what they say as evidence against them so no we do not