Do you believe in "Innocent until proven guilty?"

For example if someone allegedly commits a crime against another person, and the victim of the crime (the accuser) accuses the felon (the accused) of committing an act. Do you believe that the accused is innocent until he or she is proven guilty or do you believe that the situation is usually more nuanced than that, and as a result you're neutral, uncertain, or unable to choose a side?

Many people will take the side of "innocent until proven guilty", and some people will take the side to immediately believe the accuser (or the victim). I think that you shouldn't come to such a certain conclusion unless you know a lot of details, but remain neutral if you know few or no details at all because real life is not black and white like that.

Here's where things get frustrating. On the topic of rape, and other crimes that are often very difficult or even impossible to prove do you still hold the same 100% assured opinion? Because if a crime can't be proven that doesn't automatically mean that it didn't happen...

With many crimes only the accuser and accused can be 100% certain of what the truth is, and everyone else can only make reasonable and unreasonable assumptions, so in my opinion there's nothing you can do in this case. On the topic of rape, if the accused is innocent his life is destroyed for no reason, however if the accuser is honest then their life is ruined and they can't seek justice because there's no proof, so the felon will never spend a day in jail.

How can you persecute before there is sufficient evidence? So yes I do believe in "Innocent until proven guilty"

Persecuting without evidence is adamantly taking a side and framing the issue as if it were black and white.

Assuming someone is 100% innocent or 100% guilty without knowing much about the story is wrong imo.

'Innocent until proven guilty' seems to be a rather self-evident law in a free society, not only does it protect the innocent (and is thus moral) but in doing so benefits the general public by granted the accused greater freedom (which is obviously beneficial); it is of course counter-weighed by its costs but no one is arguing that it's bad for that reason (maybe that there should be exceptions and that some people should be held more accountable, but that's about it). Instead we focus on the actual objectives raised, does this (in combination with other faucets of modern law) do good either/both morally or pragmatically? And I submit that the answer is no.

Assuming innocence of the accused is, in a vacuum, a good idea; but once you introduce other concepts like 'case law' and 'reasonable doubt' it becomes messier. With case law, if a ruling was established once it can be referenced again and argued in court; this has some costs and some benefits but when weighed with the 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'reasonable doubt' standards it essentially allows judges to build new law and offer more and more leeway when similar situations arise again. Even if this is actively fought against, as long as case law is in play a court can influence other courts and the law itself. Reasonable doubt makes the law increasingly subjective and makes things a ton messier, this is not to say that those two things are to blame for any country's legal system's ails but rather to demonstrate what exactly these laws end up doing. Which is essentially handing legislative power over to judicial courts.

As for how this relates to any specific case like a rape case? Well, I'll give a demonstration of three made-up court cases on rape based on three different systems; 1) guilty until proven innocent, 2) innocent until proven guilty w/o case law or reasonable doubt in place, 3) and finally innocent until proven guilty + those other two. 1) A man is accused of rape, he must prove himself innocent or the court will assume he's guilty and charge him accordingly (if case law or reasonable doubt are in play, it'll be easier to prove himself innocent and it'll be easier to get his sentence changed) 2) A man is accused of rape, the court reviews the facts and based on what is the probable scenario he is either sentenced according to the letter of the law or assumed innocent. 3) A man is accused of rape, based on what is the probable scenario he will be sentenced influenced by the decision of other judges during similar trials unless he can establish reasonable doubt.

In the last scenario (which is the current legal system of the US) the accused is far more likely to be found innocent (but of course society doesn't see it the same way, a rape accusation ruins his reputation regardless of proceedings and thus the principle that makes 'innocent until proven guilty' beneficial to society is damaged tremendously.) I'm sure you see the problem with this somewhere along the lines, based on the information given here I don't trust the legal system and think it's deeply troubled and dysfunctional; societal reaction to criminal accusation only makes it worse.

Edited 4/26/2016 20:19:05

Cesare Beccaria, enough said.

Depends on the situation. If the perpetrator is subject of a terrorism or mob investigation, they should be assumed guilty for the safety of the general public.

However, a person who is suspected of robbing a bank, probably not until we can prove it.

So, for the "safety of the general public", we are going to remove a time honored tradition? The law must be applied equally. Why must we change the tradition? What safety is at risk?

What safety is at risk?

Let's see: we assume a terrorist is innocent, and give him bail, and he blows someone up.

Let's see, a guy is accused of terrorism and the government holds him indefinitely , tortures him and never tries him. Much more likely than your scenario.

Conservatives are such pick and choosers, either like the stuff the founders liked (enlightenment stuff) or don't , but don't feign being aligned to them.

Let's see: we assume a terrorist is innocent, and give him bail, and he blows someone up.

Assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty does not mean we let them go free. If proper and well-backed evidence is given, the terrorist would most likely be convicted.

The court or "the law" cannot afford to be philosophical on the beliefs of crime, the statement Innocent until proven guilty is there to protect those who are following the law. Because as soon as the law becomes a philosophical matter then more complicated issues like Determinism take factor and no one is being punished.

So you have the right to something until that right pertains to you?
Yeah you have the right to property until you have property we want.
Yeah you have the right to freedom of speech, until you say something against me.

Do I really need to continue?

I agree with Paugers and TheFalconGuy. Yes, everyone deserves equal rights, but when the safety of the general public is at risk, I think it's a little different.

The court or "the law" cannot afford to be philosophical on the beliefs of crime, the statement Innocent until proven guilty is there to protect those who are following the law. Because as soon as the law becomes a philosophical matter then more complicated issues like Determinism take factor and no one is being punished.

Your example:
Person A commits a terrorist attack.
He is known to be a terrorist.
He pleads not guilty.

Just asking for clarification here.

Edited 4/27/2016 09:21:49

eye 4 a eye goes long way to gettin tht justice

if u innocent u gonna b innocent

if u GUILTY u r guilty

but we gotta go back to the good ol days of eye 4 eye

hheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee haw