View Full Version : Innocent until proven guilty?
Benjamin
03-10-2012, 12:51 PM
Do you stand by the case innocent until proven guilty? Most of you will say you do, but I've seen quite a few people who instantly follow the media's input into things, and will instantly degrade and slate someone because the media has "proof"...
Yes, Chris Jefferies is the perfect example.
Niamh.
03-10-2012, 12:54 PM
hhhmmm, probably not 100%. Although I will say in the April case, it's not because of the media but more why the Police have been questioning him for so long
Vicky.
03-10-2012, 12:54 PM
I try to. But sometimes i just get a gut feeling about someone/something thats extremely hard to shake off.
I try to. But sometimes i just get a gut feeling about someone/something thats extremely hard to shake off.
Ever since Jessica & Holly I have always had a thought in the back on my head about some people but legally and morally I believe it's fair to consider them innocent until proven guilty.
In most cases yeah i remember most people on here suspected Chris Jefferies was innocent straight away because there was nothing at all that linked him to the crime apart from rumors about him but like what Vicky said sometimes things seem pretty clear cut like the case at the moment almost everything indicates that Mark Bridger took her
It's the right basis for a legal system and for when someone is actually on trial, but I don't think that should stop people from having their own opinion on whether someone might be guilty or not based on what we know
Livia
03-10-2012, 01:08 PM
It's the right basis for a legal system and for when someone is actually on trial, but I don't think that should stop people from having their own opinion on whether someone might be guilty or not based on what we know
But usually it isn't based on what we know, it's based on what the press tell us.
AnnieK
03-10-2012, 01:12 PM
I try to although have found myself on some occasions to be swept along on the media tide....I am struggling to do so for the current case though and not from media intrusion but from the Police information. It is highly unprecedented for the Police to release the amount of information they have without a charge being brought and so they must feel there is enough evidence to bring charges even with the release of this information as they could jeopordise his right to a fair trial and therefore jeopordise a conviction if they release too much so there must be fair reason??
I do agree there is far to much "trial by media" now and I believe the government should introduce some stricter and more enforcable restrictions on what the press can report but then there would be a huge backlash on that regarding "fair press"
Benjamin
03-10-2012, 01:13 PM
But usually it isn't based on what we know, it's based on what the press tell us.
My sentiments exactly.
But usually it isn't based on what we know, it's based on what the press tell us.
Yeah I know and I said in the other thread they shouldn't have released so many details about the suspect because of what happened to Chris Jefferies, but people can still form an opinion based on the official information we know and not just on the tabloid rumours that get printed
Kind of like the Tia Sharp case, I think a lot of people had a feeling it was someone in the family who had been involved, that's not to say they were 100% sure they were guilty but that was how it looked based on what was happening
Livia
03-10-2012, 01:16 PM
My sentiments exactly.
You're so wise x
Gillian-73
03-10-2012, 01:43 PM
Yes! Always. Some of the things i've read about the arrested man are unbelievable, he's been tried and found guilty by so many people already, when in fact he hasn't been charged never mind tried and could be completely innocent. It's not as if the police never get the wrong person either!
Livia
03-10-2012, 02:10 PM
Yeah I know and I said in the other thread they shouldn't have released so many details about the suspect because of what happened to Chris Jefferies, but people can still form an opinion based on the official information we know and not just on the tabloid rumours that get printed
Kind of like the Tia Sharp case, I think a lot of people had a feeling it was someone in the family who had been involved, that's not to say they were 100% sure they were guilty but that was how it looked based on what was happening
It's impossible to have a fair trial by jury in this country once the case has been speculated on in the press. Most people have made up their mind long before the case comes to court. The press feeds the frenzy. I wouldn't want to stop people having opinions, but I'd rather the opinions be based on fact rather than tabloid sensationalism.
the truth
03-10-2012, 02:12 PM
how many lies have the media told? million. they are not a court of law, theyre a dangerous self serving kangaroo court , that survives by selling hate, half truths and malicious gossip to its weak minded readers. theres millions of dodgy people, keep away from them. but to slander people and turn millions against individuals on the pack of lies they spout is disgusting. take hillsborough, take the fake photos of british soliders, take news of the world bribing cops, mps for decades... theres loads of lies....the courts is the only path to justice
arista
03-10-2012, 02:37 PM
Yes
but not on Dead JS
due to a report on ITV1HD news today
thesheriff443
03-10-2012, 03:22 PM
the truth can be costly but lies come cheap!
Mystic Mock
03-10-2012, 04:48 PM
It's the right basis for a legal system and for when someone is actually on trial, but I don't think that should stop people from having their own opinion on whether someone might be guilty or not based on what we know
This.
Nedusa
03-10-2012, 08:35 PM
More like guilty until proven innocent...!!!
joeysteele
03-10-2012, 08:47 PM
Sadly the thing that is becoming the norm is that a lot of people in certain crimes are seen as guilty until proven innocent.
If someone is insisting their innocence,the nature of some crimes may mean for theirs and others safety they will need to be kept out of society until their trial but those people are often seen by the public as being guilty anyway because they have been locked away from society until their trial.
I think in the vast majority of cases where people are charged with a crime, they are likely to be guilty, however it should be that people are presumed innocent, until proven guilty after all evidence is presented at a trial.
It's time that was more enforced,especially to people accused of rape for instance, where the guy, guilty or not gets his name and likely photo too splashed all over the papers.
With virtually no apology whatsoever if he then gets cleared at trial or the accusation is withdrawn as being a false accusation/s made anyway.
His life is scarred and near ruined no matter what. However that happens across other crimes too to a lesser extent.
the truth
03-10-2012, 10:15 PM
More like guilty until proven innocent...!!!
ok so we are all guilty then? the police should arrest everyoneuntil we prove our innocense? madness
the truth
03-10-2012, 10:16 PM
Sadly the thing that is becoming the norm is that a lot of people in certain crimes are seen as guilty until proven innocent.
If someone is insisting their innocence,the nature of some crimes may mean for theirs and others safety they will need to be kept out of society until their trial but those people are often seen by the public as being guilty anyway because they have been locked away from society until their trial.
I think in the vast majority of cases where people are charged with a crime, they are likely to be guilty, however it should be that people are presumed innocent, until proven guilty after all evidence is presented at a trial.
It's time that was more enforced,especially to people accused of rape for instance, where the guy, guilty or not gets his name and likely photo too splashed all over the papers.
With virtually no apology whatsoever if he then gets cleared at trial or the accusation is withdrawn as being a false accusation/s made anyway.
His life is scarred and near ruined no matter what. However that happens across other crimes too to a lesser extent.
and if its a sexual crime no man is allowed to have an opinion as he is then branded a pervert too
Nedusa
03-10-2012, 10:40 PM
ok so we are all guilty then? the police should arrest everyoneuntil we prove our innocense? madness
Don't worry they would if they could...!!!
cassieparis
07-10-2012, 12:05 PM
The presumption of innocence doesn't mean that the accused is innocent. It means that the law must prove the defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think most of us are hypocrites when it comes to this tenet of law. As what is deemed reasonable is subjective within our daily lives.
How many of us who value this tenet would leave our teenage sons with MJ should he have lived? Or our teenage daughters with Jimmy Saville where he around? Both of these men are presumed innocent under most Western law.
Pyramid*
07-10-2012, 12:11 PM
In the main, yes.
The best example I can think of was last year with a certain Mr Jefferies: I recall stating on the thread pertaining to him and the murder of the young woman: I was adamant that people were jumping the gun because he happened to be 'an eccentric/ didn't dress in the norm / was unkempt etc'..... and look what happened there.
It's far too easy for the media (and others) to blow all things out of proportion - and very very few of us are not guilty of having done that at some point in our lives: overall though: I'm very much a believer in ''innocent until proven guilty''. Very few crimes these days cannot be proven with good investigative techniques and the technology that is available to show inconclusive proof.
Tom4784
07-10-2012, 12:13 PM
I'm a firm believer in it.
Not so .....
That may be true of a particular case, but an accused may have a criminal record for the same or similar offences stretching back decades .....
Pyramid*
07-10-2012, 12:33 PM
Not so .....
That may be true of a particular case, but an accused may have a criminal record for the same or similar offences stretching back decades .....
That may indicate a high degree of 'guilt' Omah, but it is in not certain, not absolute: to be guilty because of 'past crimes' isn't the way forward - we have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person is guilty.
And thank god for that - that's all I'm saying.
What about the cases where it's generally thought the jury got it wrong, does the fact OJ Simpson was found not guilty mean we must there consider him so in our minds for example?
Pyramid*
07-10-2012, 12:50 PM
What about the cases where it's generally thought the jury got it wrong, does the fact OJ Simpson was found not guilty mean we must there consider him so in our minds for example?
What we think 'in our minds' is light years away from being on a jury and being party to every piece of salient information that is available - it is upto those responsible to prove without any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty.
If they cannot do so: they are either 'wrong' in their assumption that the person is guily / cannot provide evidence to back up their case / are inept at their job / or do not have enought evidence (even circumstantial - ie: Nat Fraser was found guilty based on circumstantial evidence).
What we think 'in our minds' is light years away from being on a jury and being party to every piece of salient information that is available - it is upto those responsible to prove without any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty.
If they cannot do so: they are either 'wrong' in their assumption that the person is guily / cannot provide evidence to back up their case / are inept at their job / or do not have enought evidence (even circumstantial - ie: Nat Fraser was found guilty based on circumstantial evidence).
Obviously, I've already said I believe it is the correct basis for a legal system and trial, however juries are only human and are not infallible and do make mistakes sometimes, just because someone has not been declared guilty by a court doesn't mean we aren't free to consider them so based on the information available
That may indicate a high degree of 'guilt' Omah, but it is in not certain, not absolute: to be guilty because of 'past crimes' isn't the way forward - we have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person is guilty.
And thank god for that - that's all I'm saying.
I didn't say that a record may indicate guilt - in Crown Court cases, the jury is often unaware of the accused's past until he is found guilty of the offence for which he is standing trial - only then may they become aware that the former accused did not, in fact have an "unblemished" record .....
Innocent of a crime, maybe, but not necessarily as innocent as the day they were born .....
Pyramid*
07-10-2012, 01:36 PM
Obviously, I've already said I believe it is the correct basis for a legal system and trial, however juries are only human and are not infallible and do make mistakes sometimes, just because someone has not been declared guilty by a court doesn't mean we aren't free to consider them so based on the information available
sorry, I missed your point in all of this then.
Innocent until proven guilty. It's dependent on the evidence available....if there is not enough evidence to prove guilt: then person is innocent...
I'm unclear which part of that you have not understood?
Pyramid*
07-10-2012, 01:37 PM
I didn't say that a record may indicate guilt - in Crown Court cases, the jury is often unaware of the accused's past until he is found guilty of the offence for which he is standing trial - only then may they become aware that the former accused did not, in fact have an "unblemished" record .....
Innocent of a crime, maybe, but not necessarily as innocent as the day they were born .....
that's all you need be concerned with... innocent of a crime: as decided from a jury.
that's all you need be concerned with... innocent of a crime: as decided from a jury.
Why do I need to be concerned ?
IIRC, from my jury experience, the foreman does not, indeed, declare "Innocent", but "Not Guilty" ..... ;)
Pyramid*
07-10-2012, 01:45 PM
Why do I need to be concerned ?
IIRC, from my jury experience, the foreman does not, indeed, declare "Innocent", but "Not Guilty" ..... ;)
given that you are commenting and taking a high degree of interest in the thread... I'd have thought that was 'self explanatory' Omah..
given that you are commenting and taking a high degree of interest in the thread... I'd have thought that was 'self explanatory' Omah..
I'm just passing through - you're the one with 6 posts ..... :xyxwave:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.