Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Innocent until proven guilty

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in Politics & Debate
Should this notion ever be changed?

Really few legal systems around the world subscribe to this concept (those based on English common law do).

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Innocent, but in custody, until proven guilty is the right way to go for suspected terrorists.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's a good argument, one of which means you have to prove you are innocent.
    However in most cases this is impossible, and it should be up to the prosecution to show evidence of guilt. It is up to them to prove that you are guilty.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That would have allowed the shoe bomber to be out on bail while he awaits trial. What makes you think these people wouldn't terrorize or disappear while awaiting their trial?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry, I wasn't talking about terrorists. I think this topic is a general one about law and order.
    Suspected terrorists should be imprisoned until their guilt has been decided, they are too dangerous to be released.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    That would have allowed the shoe bomber to be out on bail while he awaits trial. What makes you think these people would terrorize or disappear while awaiting their trial?

    I don't think being granted bail has anything to do with the presumption of innocence. If the accused is thought to present a risk of doing a runner or be a danger in any way bail will not be granted.

    The presumption of innocence means that once you go to trial it is the prosecution that has to prove to the judge or jury that you are guilty of the crime at hand. In countries that don't adopt this principle presumably it is the defendant who has to prove he is innocent to the court. This is a rather scary prospect.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin




    The presumption of innocence means that once you go to trial it is the prosecution that has to prove to the judge or jury that you are guilty of the crime at hand. In countries that don't adopt this principle presumably it is the defendant who has to prove he is innocent to the court. This is a rather scary prospect.

    Why is it 'scary'? In France (a country where a person is assumed guilty before having to prove his/her innocence) there is no adverserial courtrooms (, i.e. there is no defence and prosecution attempting to outwit each other).
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My belief is Al Qaeda is using the West's laws and tolerance. The free Press is a check against abuse of retaining people too much.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by monocrat


    Why is it 'scary'? In France (a country where a person is assumed guilty before having to prove his/her innocence) there is no adverserial courtrooms (, i.e. there is no defence and prosecution attempting to outwit each other).

    What I think is scary is the concept of someone accusing me of punching, racially abusing or even raping them, and me having to prove I didn't do it. How the hell can you prove you didn't call someone a "fucking this or that", gave them a kicking or got them drunk and force them to suck you off? There are many instances where it'd be next to imposible to prove your innocence. What do you do then?
Sign In or Register to comment.