Innocent Until Proven Guilty

[lostalex]

Most civilized countries have "innocent until proven guilty" as a premise of their justice systems.

If you assume that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, doesn't that by default mean that you are assuming that the victim of a crime is lying until proven correct?

The policy openly admits that it is better to let 1000 guilty men go free than to put 1 innocent man in jail.

Do you agree with the "innocent until proven guilty" policy, especially when the standards of proving someone guilty are almost impossibly high. especially in rape cases, where it's almost impossible to prove it, it's always explained as just consensual "rough sex". how do you prove a rape with no witneses? especially since most rapes happen from someone the victim knows(boyfriends/husbands/close friends).

Is it better to let 1000 men guilty of rape never face any consequences than to put 1 innocent man in jail?

Do you agree with the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy? or do you think it just victimizes the victims a second time? It means that most victims will not get justice.

[joeysteele]

Hmm. lostalex, you have got me thinking.

I have always accepted the innocent until proven guilty route, however what you say above is very thought provoking and puts a really strong argument as to thinking the other way too.

Good post,really good post.

Your points as to rape are very strong ones and as you say,if it is believed someone is innocent until proven guilty then the other assumption is the accuser is lying until being proved correct.

For me a separate issue is that it takes way too long to get through the court system and resolve in the courts as to an actual trial which leaves the outcome in the balance for an unacceptable length of time.

I need to think about your post,it does make points difficult to argue against really.

[Firewire]

But then, in the shoes of the accused, you wouldn't want to be locked up for months until a trial starts if you are genuinely innocent. It's just one of things.

[Me. I Am Salman]

Is it better to let 1000 men guilty of rape never face any consequences than to put 1 innocent man in jail?

pretty much

[Samm]

This is going to be one of them threads that go on for like 20 pages and then gets locked

[lostalex]

pretty much

why?

[Brother Leon]

In reality people very often are seen as Guilty before proven Innocent though.

[Me. I Am Salman]

why?

Because it would definitely destroy a life. The rapist getting away free wouldn't destroy the victim's life, even if it did it just wouldn't compare to the feeling of being in jail for something you didn't do. I'm sure the emotional would be unimaginable

[lostalex]

Because it would definitely destroy a life. The rapist getting away free wouldn't destroy the victim's life, if it did it just wouldn't compare to the feeling of being in jail for something you didn't do. I'm sure the emotional would be unimaginable

but you are saying it's better to destroy 1000 victims lives, than to destroy the life of 1 innocent person.

Wouldn't it be better to have justice for 1000 people even though it means an injustice for 1 person?

[Me. I Am Salman]

it'd be awful but they can still rebuild their lives. being in jail your whole life though is a pointless and depressing existence

[lostalex]

it'd be awful but they can still rebuild their lives. being in jail your whole life though is a pointless and depressing existence

but still, letting 1000 criminals free (most of whom will victimize someone else) just for 1 person.... it seems disproportionate to me.

[smeagol]

There is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty though. if people were innocent until proven guilty they wouldn't have their civil rights and freedom taken away first . they wouldn't have people on remand. people woudn't end up in cells or handcuffed etc etc lol

famous people wouldn't be all over the news charged and judged before they even have a right to reply.

your always guilty until proved innocent always.

[lostalex]

There is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty though. if people were innocent until proven guilty they wouldn't have their civil rights and freedom taken away first . they wouldn't have people on remand. people woudn't end up in cells or handcuffed etc etc lol

famous people wouldn't be all over the news charged and judged before they even have a right to reply.

your always guilty until proved innocent always.

well that's an interesting point. so you are saying the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is just lip service. kinda like the Queen being head of state but she has no actual power.

I disagree though, i think in the actual court room, the juries do take "innocent until proven guilty" seriously and they do factor that "reasonable doubt" thing into their decisions.

but if it is just lip service, should we do away with the whole innocent until proven guilty mantra?

[smeagol]

well that's an interesting point. so you are saying the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is just lip service. kinda like the Queen being head of state but she has no actual power.

I disagree though, i think in the actual court room, the juries do take "innocent until proven guilty" seriously and they do factor that "reasonable doubt" thing into their decisions.

but if it is just lip service, should we do away with the whole innocent until proven guilty mantra?

i think they should just be honest and do away with the saying as its not true
if someone is in court it means they have been charged. charged is we think you done it so they have already been judged guilty its then up to the person to prove otherwise with a lawyer to the judges or jury so it kind of makes the saying silly.

[Vicky.]

i think they should just be honest and do away with the saying as its not true
if someone is in court it means they have been charged. charged is we think you done it so they have already been judged guilty its then up to the person to prove otherwise with a lawyer to the judges or jury so it kind of makes the saying silly.

Too right, maybe years and years ago, but now your guilt is decided by the media way before any chance of a trial. Then depending on how your 'crime' went down, you might be locked up for months, or years, pending trial. Its ridiculous really

[lostalex]

Too right, maybe years and years ago, but now your guilt is decided by the media way before any chance of a trial. Then depending on how your 'crime' went down, you might be locked up for months, or years, pending trial. Its ridiculous really
I don't think we should judge the judicial system based on celebrity trials. They don't paint an accurate picture of the justice system at all.

[Vicky.]

I don't think we should judge the judicial system based on celebrity trials. They don't paint an accurate picture of the justice system at all.

I dont think 'celebrity' trials should be any different tbh, infact I dont think papers should be allowed to report on a lot of things until a verdict has been given in court. I think its a ****ing disgrace that for some cases the court date isnt for like 2 years or something ridiculous and the accused has to spend that long in prison, infact, even a month in prison is too much given your guilt isnt even proven. In short, I dont get why anyone says innocent until proven guilty when its clearly not true

[lostalex]

I dont think 'celebrity' trials should be any different tbh, infact I dont think papers should be allowed to report on a lot of things until a verdict has been given in court. I think its a ****ing disgrace that for some cases the court date isnt for like 2 years or something ridiculous and the accused has to spend that long in prison, infact, even a month in prison is too much given your guilt isnt even proven. In short, I dont get why anyone says innocent until proven guilty when its clearly not true

I understand what you're saying, but at the same time the courts are in a no-win situation, because if they don't allow the press, then they are accused of hiding the truth, and not being "transparent".

It's a difficult balance between transparency and openness, and trying to protect the process from outside influence.

[InOne]

I think it all depends on the actual crime

[lostalex]

I think it all depends on the actual crime

so you think we should have different standards for different crimes?

[InOne]

so you think we should have different standards for different crimes?

What if someone is caught on camera violently attacking someone? What if someone who has been injured and claimed to be attacked accuses someone and they get arrested and locked up? What do you even mean by standards

[lostalex]

What if someone is caught on camera violently attacking someone? What if someone who has been injured and claimed to be attacked accuses someone and they get arrested and locked up? What do you even mean by standards

even when it's caught on video though, often times you don't have a complete context for that video. CCTV is often just one static camera position, so you don't see what happened before they moved into frame of the camera, and you can't see it from all angles... so even CCTV footage doesn't tell the whole story, and you still have reasonable doubt.

I'm saying the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is too high a standard, and with the right lawyers, it's almost impossible to convict anyone, because there will always be some level of reasonable doubt.

I think the standards for conviction are too high in most western countries.

[user104658]

I can see what you're saying but I would point out that you're taking the 1000:1 ratio too literally, assuming that it's an actual statistic. It isn't, it's just rhetoric designed to illustrate a point. In reality, there's probably more than one innocent person in prison per thousand prisoners already... And changing the status quo would vastly increase that number. Unacceptably large numbers of innocent people would face prison and even more would face the threat of prison (false crime reports would increase). There would also be a corresponding increase in pressure on the police and justice systems.

All they're saying is that, in *theory*, they believe it's BETTER for 1000 criminals to go free than one innocent man be punished. It has no meaning beyond that; it's not based on actual figures.

[lostalex]

All they're saying is that, in *theory*, they believe it's BETTER for 1000 criminals to go free than one innocent man be punished. It has no meaning beyond that; it's not based on actual figures.

but even in theory, the idea of letting 1000 criminals go free to spare 1 innocent man, i find that logic appalling.

do you think that logic is okay? that it's better to let 1000, or even just 100 criminals get away with their crimes just to make sure you don't put 1 innocent man in prison?

if you were on a lifeboat with 101 people, and if you keep all 101 people the boat will sink, but if you put 1 man overboard the other 100 people will survive, isn't that 1 man worth the sacrifice?

[user104658]

but even in theory, the idea of letting 1000 criminals go free to spare 1 innocent man, i find that logic appalling.

do you think that logic is okay? that it's better to let 1000, or even just 100 criminals get away with their crimes just to make sure you don't put 1 innocent man in prison?

if you were on a lifeboat with 101 people, and if you keep all 101 people the boat will sink, but if you put 1 man overboard the other 100 people will survive, isn't that 1 man worth the sacrifice?

You-re oversimplifying, it depends on the crime and also the likelihood of re-offence.

For example, would I see 100 drunk idiots who punched another 100 drunk idiots in the face go free rather than have an innocent man go to jail for two years? Yes, 100%. Would I see one innocent man go to prison to stop 100 cold-blooded killers who are likely to kill again go free? Maybe so.

I can tell you for a fact that I'd happily watch 100, 1000, even 1,000,000 non-violent criminals go free than have one innocent man spend life in jail... that includes burglers etc. but also even killers; if they killed accidentally and there's basically zero chance of it happening again.

So even if there was to be any change to the process, I'd only see it happen where serious, violent charges are involved. Murders or really severe harm caused.

[InOne]

People don't end up in prison for no reason lostalex like toy soldier was saying

[lostalex]

People don't end up in prison for no reason lostalex like toy soldier was saying

people ending up in prison is not what we are talking about though, i have no doubt that the vast majority of people in prison are guilty.... we are talking about all of the guilty people that walk free.

I believe that most people that commit crimes walk away without a conviction. that is what worries me. Most victims don't get justice.

[InOne]

They're clever and don't get caught. What else can you say?

[lostalex]

They're clever and don't get caught. What else can you say?

well that's a good question... what do you say to the legitimate victims who walk away feeling like what happened to them didn't happen, that they are the liars. that they are the wrong ones. what do you say to them when their victimizers walk away scott free?

our system says "just suck it up", that's the wy the cards fall, you were violated in a horrible way, but it's better that you are called a liar, and a false accuser, and if you continue to accuse the person who violated you, then you can be sued for lying. We'd rather 1000 people be called liars,. we'd rather call 1000 victims liars and deny the crimes against them, than convict 1 innocent man.

That's how the justice system works now.

Imagine how that feels, to be violated and abused., and then told that you are a liar, that you are not allowed to even talk about how you were abused, that the person who abused you is innocent, and if you even speak about it again, then you can be held liable for making those claims, knowing that it's the truth.

How would you feel being told that you aren't even allowed to talk about what someone did to you, because they were found "innocent" in a court?

imagine what a mind-**** that would be.

[InOne]

well that's a good question... what do you say to the legitimate victims who walk away feeling like what happened to them didn't happen, that they are the liars. that they are the wrong ones. what do you say to them when their victimizers walk away scott free?

our system says "just suck it up", that's the wy the cards fall, you were violated in a horrible way, but it's better that you are called a liar, and a false accuser, and if you continue to accuse the person who violated you, then you can be sued for lying. We'd rather 1000 people be called liars,. we'd rather call 1000 victims liars and deny the crimes against them, than convict 1 innocent man.

That's how the justice system works now.

Imagine how that feels, to be violated and abused., and then told that you are a liar, that you are not allowed to even talk about how you were abused, that the person who abused you is innocent, and if you even speak about it again, then you can be held liable for making those claims, knowing that it's the truth.

How would you feel being told that you aren't even allowed to talk about what someone did to you, because they were found "innocent" in a court?

imagine what a mind-**** that would be.

there should be more after care I agree. I think you're getting onto the rape subject here though

[Nedusa]

What angers me most is the fact that previous convictions are not allowed to be disclosed until the trial is completed and so many times people are acquitted because the evidence is too circumstantial and/or the barrister has found legal loophole. Only to find out that this self same person has a string of previous convictions for the same crime as long as your arm.

The look on some of the jurors faces is priceless as they let the clearly guilty piece of crap back out onto the streets to carry on re offending .

I say previous convictions for the same offence should be disclosed to the jury as it is relevant to the defendants current case.

[joeysteele]

What angers me most is the fact that previous convictions are not allowed to be disclosed until the trial is completed and so many times people are acquitted because the evidence is too circumstantial and/or the barrister has found legal loophole. Only to find out that this self same person has a string of previous convictions for the same crime as long as your arm.

The look on some of the jurors faces is priceless as they let the clearly guilty piece of crap back out onto the streets to carry on re offending .

I say previous convictions for the same offence should be disclosed to the jury as it is relevant to the defendants current case.

This has been a contentious issue for a good while and in some trials this can happen.
I can take on board much of what you say above in your post.

However, there are 2 ways to look at it.
Once you reveal previous convictions,even possibly a lot smaller than the current crime being tried in court.
The chance of a fair trial is then greatly diminished and the revealing of previous convictions clouds the whole trial.
That could mean someone who had done a lot wrong in the past, then turned their life around but then perhaps were in the wrong place at the wrong time, could be discounted as being able to tell the truth and leave his/her trial a forgone conclusion against them because of previous crimes.

A trial should be about the issue in hand at the time,with enough evidence to win conviction on that alone,otherwise in all truth, fair trials could be near impossible to conduct.

[thesheriff443]

shoot first and ask questions later.
humans tell lies on both sides of the line, a criminal or a police man.
some times there is not enough evidence to prove you're guilt or innocence.
this thread is like dog chasing its tail!

[thesheriff443]

a police Sargent once said to me, it looks ok, if not you have got away with it.

[Nedusa]

This has been a contentious issue for a good while and in some trials this can happen.
I can take on board much of what you say above in your post.

However, there are 2 ways to look at it.
Once you reveal previous convictions,even possibly a lot smaller than the current crime being tried in court.
The chance of a fair trial is then greatly diminished and the revealing of previous convictions clouds the whole trial.
That could mean someone who had done a lot wrong in the past, then turned their life around but then perhaps were in the wrong place at the wrong time, could be discounted as being able to tell the truth and leave his/her trial a forgone conclusion against them because of previous crimes.

A trial should be about the issue in hand at the time,with enough evidence to win conviction on that alone,otherwise in all truth, fair trials could be near impossible to conduct.

I agree previous convictions should not have a bearing on a current trial but I think when the previous conviction is for the same offence then I think it does have a bearing . Say this person has a history of burglary and they are charged with another burglary then I think their previous form for this offence is a factor however small and this fact should be disclosed to the jury especially if it comes down to a balance of probabilities in trying to decide guilt.

Knowing this person is capable of burglary and has committed this offence on many occasions may help the jury in deciding the current case.

I think disclosure should only be made however when the person has a string of convictions for the same offence they are currently charged with.

[lostalex]

shoot first and ask questions later.
humans tell lies on both sides of the line, a criminal or a police man.
some times there is not enough evidence to prove you're guilt or innocence.
this thread is like dog chasing its tail!

but don't you agree that criminals are better liars than victims?

unfortunately the justice system seems to assume the opposite.

[joeysteele]

I agree previous convictions should not have a bearing on a current trial but I think when the previous conviction is for the same offence then I think it does have a bearing . Say this person has a history of burglary and they are charged with another burglary then I think their previous form for this offence is a factor however small and this fact should be disclosed to the jury especially if it comes down to a balance of probabilities in trying to decide guilt.

Knowing this person is capable of burglary and has committed this offence on many occasions may help the jury in deciding the current case.

I think disclosure should only be made however when the person has a string of convictions for the same offence they are currently charged with.

It can happen Nedusa, there are ways of adding a charge that at the very least opens up a past dishonesty element that can make it harder for the past crimes to be hidden totally.

Especially as to the 'spent' convictions.

However as Law stands, if someone is pleading not guilty, then they have to have the right to a fair trial.
It cannot be right that on a charge now, they have held against them previous convictions,that actually could open the door to others effectively 'framing' someone they know who has past convictions for crimes and the real guilty person/s making them the scapegoat for it.

The penalties for pleading not guilty to something and then being found guilty usually have a greater and severe sentence imposed on them.
A trial is not a nice place to be but it has to be seen as fair and give all a fighting chance where doubt is inferred.
Previous convictions being revealed would remove all that process but it does happen in some cases now that some past crimes don't remain hidden totally.

This happens more often than people believe but in a hopeless looking case for someone who maybe is not guilty of the crime, a plea of guilty is made for lighter sentencing.

Sadly if previous convictions being revealed were the norm then in all likelihhood, anyone with previous convictions innocent or otherwise would not have the chance of a fair trial and a great number more trials would be seen as a hopeless cause.

It is a hard one and really what it needs is a massive reform of the justice system I think to ensure fairness with all facts.
I doubt even in my lifetime if any major changes to the justice system will be forthcoming however.

Lostalex made this thread and highlighted rape crimes, well I would certainly be in favour of ensuring that full justice was done in those crimes and I am sure it can be that the victims, as he said, often are left to pick up the pieces even when they are correct.
There, for me, more needs to be done to punish too those who make the false accusations of rape so that people who are rightly reporting it maybe can get the full justice they should have.

This topic opens up a lot to think about and there are few simple answers I guess but there are I am sure, many injustices done to both the accused and accusers in our justice system at present,which in my view at this time anyway,the overall revealing of past convictions in most cases would not help at all.

[thesheriff443]

but don't you agree that criminals are better liars than victims?

unfortunately the justice system seems to assume the opposite.

you could say, who would you believe, a police man or a criminal?

[the truth]

yes innocent until proven guilty, or rather not guilty until proven guilty.

[Livia]

Our legal system is a flawed system, but what are we going to replace it with?

[the truth]

Our legal system is a flawed system, but what are we going to replace it with?

no replace just keep fine tuning and improving.

[user104658]

well that's a good question... what do you say to the legitimate victims who walk away feeling like what happened to them didn't happen, that they are the liars. that they are the wrong ones. what do you say to them when their victimizers walk away scott free?

our system says "just suck it up", that's the wy the cards fall, you were violated in a horrible way, but it's better that you are called a liar, and a false accuser, and if you continue to accuse the person who violated you, then you can be sued for lying. We'd rather 1000 people be called liars,. we'd rather call 1000 victims liars and deny the crimes against them, than convict 1 innocent man.

That's how the justice system works now.

Imagine how that feels, to be violated and abused., and then told that you are a liar, that you are not allowed to even talk about how you were abused, that the person who abused you is innocent, and if you even speak about it again, then you can be held liable for making those claims, knowing that it's the truth.

How would you feel being told that you aren't even allowed to talk about what someone did to you, because they were found "innocent" in a court?

imagine what a mind-**** that would be.

You can just flip that over, though - Imagine how it would feel to know that you have done nothing wrong, to go to court and be told that you are violent and a criminal, that the person who is accusing you dishonestly is the "victim", and that you're going to go to prison despite being innocent. Imagine sitting in a cell for years, knowing that you are NOT guilty, that you DIDN'T do what the whole world now believes about you, but you have no choice but to suck it up and live like that.

Can you imagine what a mind-**** THAT would be?? At least a victim who doesn't have justice served is still free... at least they can attempt to move on, and live a normal human life. An incorrectly imprisoned innocent person has all of those same feelings, has been equally failed by the justice system, and on top of that has had their freedom taken away from them.

[Kizzy]

You can only convict on the weight of evidence, if there isn't enough to convict then someone guilty could walk free, by the same token someone innocent and accused falsely would too. How you differentiate between the two I don't know,
unless the evidence is there to suggest an assault never took place initially.

[the truth]

Id like to see more abortion doctors inspected too for improper practices....also any women having abortions beyond the 24 week period need imprisonment too
lets step up the action on these people to protect the lives of the unborn children

[Livia]

Id like to see more abortion doctors inspected too for improper practices....also any women having abortions beyond the 24 week period need imprisonment too
lets step up the action on these people to protect the lives of the unborn children

WHOLE different story. Nice try though.

[the truth]

WHOLE different story. Nice try though.

no its not. were talking about innocence or guilt, thats an enormously braod spectrum. nice try though.

[Livia]

no its not. were talking about innocence or guilt, thats an enormously braod spectrum. nice try though.

... and you just inevitably roll it around to a woman-bashing opportunity and a call for doctors to be investigated. That's nothing to do with this, according to the OP. It's not a discussion about abortion nor about medical ethics. And furthermore, I know you're going to go on and on about this... but I won't be reading any more of your nonsense in this thread.

[the truth]

... and you just inevitably roll it around to a woman-bashing opportunity and a call for doctors to be investigated. That's nothing to do with this, according to the OP. It's not a discussion about abortion nor about medical ethics. And furthermore, I know you're going to go on and on about this... but I won't be reading any more of your nonsense in this thread.

thanks for the personal abuse, duly reported. it is relevant regardless if its a subect you dont care about. innocent or guilty covers a vast spectrum not just areas that interest you.