Innocent Until Proven Guilty
 

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.

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.

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.

pretty much

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

why?

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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.

I think it all depends on the actual crime

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

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.

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.

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.