Search Results: do people have the right not to be judged

If you or the judge at this person's sentencing hearing. This is not a law question. There's no right or wrong answer. It's not based on what country or state you're in or if a lawyer was involved. It's just a simple question used to see how people feel about Justice and how that comes in to effect with heavy drugs.

The person is in let's say 44 and has no serious record beyond a drug paraphernalia charge from 15 years ago in a state that didn't make that big of a deal of it. So they were never brought back to that state to go to court. That wasn't that big of a deal it probably would have been dropped anyway. Other than that they have no major charge beyond a public intoxication. Besides the paraphernalia maybe two or three charges total of the most minor degree.
But they are being punished for having a gram or let's say a half gram of a heavy narcotic along the lines of, it's meth. A half gram. What would you decide with options below?

Probation and fines are assumed. Anything without jail time assumes community service and rehabilitation is definitely an assumption for any of the choices here.
No also to some this may seem really lenient. But this is often what you end up with after you get done making deals and with plea bargains at the very end of the road. With somebody spending some money on a lawyer

This is related to my other question on this subject.

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.

In many countries and under many legal systems, including common law and civil law systems (not to be confused with the other kind of civil law, which deals with non-criminal legal issues), the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial. It is also an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.

I am sorry no matter the circumstance, the burden of proof is on the accuser, A rational thinking person would agree with this... People not capable of rational thought would see anyone as guilty until proven innocent.

I’m friends with a few liberals on social media. Out of curiosity I checked up on their reactions about Rush Limbaugh yesterday and it was nothing but a massive cess pool of hatred. To some people Rush was a bigger scumbag than Harvey Weinstein.

Personally I never followed Rush when I was younger. I can remember my parents briefly mentioning him and my Democrat uncle hating him. I remember an old Beavis and Butthead episode where Mike Judge mocked him.

After reading his Wikipedia profile I saw he had made some stupid comments during his career but he was no serial murderer/rapist. He was just outspokenly and highly opinionated conservative.

Now I personally can’t stand the likes of Nancy Pelosi, AOC and activists like Shaun King. But I know I wouldn’t post hashtags #burninhell if one of them passed away. In my opinion if you are the type to piss on graves you are not doing yourself any divine favors if there is an afterlife. It’s disgusting.

Anyway I could see a very small contingent of alt right Qanon morons acting this way if a prominent leftist passed. But I just don’t see the average moderate conservative celebrating deaths of activists/politicians they don’t like.