[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by lostalex

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.]

Originally Posted by smeagol

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

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]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.