FAQ |
Members List |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
05-04-2014, 10:18 PM | #1 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
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.
__________________
Don't be afraid to be weak. Last edited by lostalex; 05-04-2014 at 10:19 PM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
05-04-2014, 10:28 PM | #2 | ||
|
|||
Remembering Kerry
|
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. |
||
Reply With Quote |
05-04-2014, 10:29 PM | #3 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
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.
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
05-04-2014, 10:31 PM | #4 | ||
|
|||
User banned
|
Quote:
|
||
Reply With Quote |
05-04-2014, 10:32 PM | #5 | ||
|
|||
we
|
This is going to be one of them threads that go on for like 20 pages and then gets locked
Last edited by Samm; 05-04-2014 at 10:32 PM. |
||
Reply With Quote |
05-04-2014, 10:40 PM | #6 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
__________________
Don't be afraid to be weak. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
05-04-2014, 10:42 PM | #7 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
In reality people very often are seen as Guilty before proven Innocent though.
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
05-04-2014, 10:48 PM | #8 | ||
|
|||
User banned
|
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
Last edited by Me. I Am Salman; 05-04-2014 at 10:50 PM. |
||
Reply With Quote |
05-04-2014, 10:50 PM | #9 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Wouldn't it be better to have justice for 1000 people even though it means an injustice for 1 person?
__________________
Don't be afraid to be weak. Last edited by lostalex; 05-04-2014 at 10:53 PM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
05-04-2014, 10:53 PM | #10 | ||
|
|||
User banned
|
it'd be awful but they can still rebuild their lives. being in jail your whole life though is a pointless and depressing existence
Last edited by Me. I Am Salman; 05-04-2014 at 10:54 PM. |
||
Reply With Quote |
05-04-2014, 11:03 PM | #11 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
but still, letting 1000 criminals free (most of whom will victimize someone else) just for 1 person.... it seems disproportionate to me.
__________________
Don't be afraid to be weak. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
05-04-2014, 11:26 PM | #12 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
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.
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
05-04-2014, 11:43 PM | #13 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
Don't be afraid to be weak. Last edited by lostalex; 05-04-2014 at 11:44 PM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
05-04-2014, 11:54 PM | #14 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
06-04-2014, 12:06 AM | #15 | ||
|
|||
0_o
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
||
Reply With Quote |
06-04-2014, 12:13 AM | #16 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
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.
__________________
Don't be afraid to be weak. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
06-04-2014, 12:17 AM | #17 | ||
|
|||
0_o
|
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
__________________
Quote:
|
||
Reply With Quote |
06-04-2014, 12:49 AM | #18 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
It's a difficult balance between transparency and openness, and trying to protect the process from outside influence.
__________________
Don't be afraid to be weak. Last edited by lostalex; 06-04-2014 at 05:54 AM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
06-04-2014, 03:17 AM | #19 | |||
|
||||
R.I.P Kerry x
|
I think it all depends on the actual crime
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
06-04-2014, 05:53 AM | #20 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
so you think we should have different standards for different crimes?
__________________
Don't be afraid to be weak. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
06-04-2014, 05:57 AM | #21 | |||
|
||||
R.I.P Kerry x
|
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
__________________
|
|||
Reply With Quote |
06-04-2014, 06:06 AM | #22 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Don't be afraid to be weak. Last edited by lostalex; 06-04-2014 at 06:07 AM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
06-04-2014, 06:29 AM | #23 | ||
|
|||
-
|
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. Last edited by Toy Soldier; 06-04-2014 at 06:29 AM. |
||
Reply With Quote |
06-04-2014, 06:53 AM | #24 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
Don't be afraid to be weak. Last edited by lostalex; 06-04-2014 at 06:53 AM. |
|||
Reply With Quote |
06-04-2014, 07:09 AM | #25 | ||
|
|||
-
|
Quote:
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. |
||
Reply With Quote |
Reply |
|
|