[Benjamin]

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"...

[Marc]

Yes, Chris Jefferies is the perfect example.

[Niamh.]

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.]

I try to. But sometimes i just get a gut feeling about someone/something thats extremely hard to shake off.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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.

[Novo]

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

[MTVN]

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]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Livia

But usually it isn't based on what we know, it's based on what the press tell us.

My sentiments exactly.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Livia

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]

Originally Posted by ukturtle

My sentiments exactly.

You're so wise x

[Gillian-73]

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]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

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]

Yes
but not on Dead JS
due to a report on ITV1HD news today

[thesheriff443]

the truth can be costly but lies come cheap!

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

More like guilty until proven innocent...!!!

[joeysteele]

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]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

Originally Posted by the truth

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]

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*]

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.