Guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty?
 

Which justice system do you prefer?

Poll Incoming!

It's a toughie since they both have their pros and cons, but I'd lean more towards the latter

For me it should be innocent until proven guilty.

Legally the latter is the only way to do things without risking gross miscarriages of justice however some people get confused and believe that legal due process and individual judgement are one and the same, when obviously, they are not. To demonstrate;

If some scumbag husband abuses and beats up your sister but a court finds that there isn't enough evidence to find him guilty of a crime, and he walks out of court... you obviously don't have to turn to your sister and say "Oh so he's innocent after all sis, why u been lying?".

It shouldn't be a difficult distinction but I know some people find it challenging.

The onus is on the party/ies making the accusation to prove it.It should stay that way.
If it’s guilty until proven innocent we’re all basically guilty whilst we’re going about our day to day lives.Abit like the Christian belief of original sin.

So innocent until proven guilty is the only choice for a free society.
Imo.

.....


To add, sexual abuse and rape cases are extremly difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and convictions rates are very very low, does that mean the "victims" are all liars? No I don't think so. It's not a straight forward answer to this but in theory obviously Innocent until proven guilty should apply.

Innocent until proven guilty

Guilty until proven guilty

Or guilty until proven innocent... then you pass away and you are guilty again.

Exactly

Free LT

Interesting this gets made in light of the news re: Amber Heard and Johnny Depp

Innocent until proven guilty

Innocent until proven guilty , I'll stick by that ! .

It's a mess how people see things the other way round .

He's just guilty until guilty again

**** I misclicked