If a person is accused of having committed a crime, do you believe that they should be presumed not guilty unless and until they are proven guilty?

[Nyx_85]

It's not up to the public to decide the guilt OR innocence of anyone. However the average person is not unbiased enough to keep their personal opinions out of matters that have nothing to do with them. Media should have zero involvement. But they don't, because they feed off our desire to feel self important.

[ImTheFMan]

Innocent until proven guilty. Unless it's a man with a sexually charged allegation then you burn him alive just in case.

[Blonde401]

I believe names shouldn't be allowed to be printed until found guilty but that's just me. It doesn't mean I think that person is innocent but it stops witch hunts. Especially since I read about Christopher Jefferies losing his entire life, essentially, after having committed no crime and had a trial by media. He simply looked odd and that was it. So, presume guilt in as far as to investigate but do not print it for the word to see.

[Gypsy_x]

The presumption of innocence applies to criminal law, not public shame and outrage.

I believe in it in a legal sense, but in the modern age not all bad behaviour is illegal, and people have a right to speak out.

[Astoriana]

I’m assuming that you’re talking about the Harvey Weinstein etc cases.

Do we not owe victims the courtesy of believing them? Would you go up to someone whose house has been broken into and robbed and say “Nah, fuck off. You’re just lying for the attention.”?

[SarahsSummer]

Media spotlights of alleged victims does challenge the cornerstone of the American justice system, Presumption of innocence. Sometimes to the detriment of the falsely accused. I count on the legal system to sort out fact from fiction. when this does irreparable harm to the falsely accused, I count on the court system agin for monetary reparations.

[itsallover]

Usually when someone is accused of committing a crime, there is the assumption that the accuser has evidence that the accused is guilty. However, in the case of rape or sexual assault accusations it's a bit trickier because it's difficult to provide hard evdience. That's why the 'innocent until proven guilty' philosophy should only really be confined to the courts. I'm not going to not believe someone was raped because they have no evidence. Accusations should be taken seriously, with or without evidence.

[ChronicThinker]

It's situational. You can come to your own conclusions but legally you need to be presumed innocent unless there is no shadow of a doubt that a crime is committed. You aren't guilty just because you've been accused of something unfortunately.

[PrincessPie]

Yes, I believe in the presumption of innocence but sometimes the allegations are "obviously" true

[CubsterShura]

Honestly, we should be verifying and investigating, and get witnesses. Without confirmation there shouldn't be any punishment however by then the accused person can't just be let alone.

[BrileyCat]

in the law there is a presumption of innocence . (so i agree the question is worded weird ) .
BUT in law there is also a degree of impartiality and credibility acknowledged equally
for the accuser and the accused . or there should be . but it does not always
work out that way . bc just as with public opinion and with media interference
that can be unfair and biased based on social and political positions . so too can there be
bias in the justice system where in courtrooms are some judges and attorneys who intentionally
offset negate and ignore that balance of impartiality and credibility due to their own prejudices .
all of which has nothing to do with each side having the right and duty to impeach the other
in order to win .

[Sunburst223]

I do believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a legal sense. I also don't think people's lives should be ruined over vague or hard to prove allegations. But sometimes, it is kind of obvious that accusations are probably true.

[yougurt]

People can believe in the victims and agree that the person is not guilty until proven. The allegations against Harvey Weinstein are obviously true, but until he's convicted in court, no one can call him a criminal.

[Darkfairie17]

I think the problem with the latest hollywood scandals is that typically victims are telling the truth. We are walking a fine line because we don't want to call accusers liars, but we also don't want to get the pitch forks out unless someone is proven guilty.

With the way that these alleged crimes were committed, it's hard to prove because they were behind closed doors. As well as there being a whole bunch of people who knew, but didn't do anything, and rumours surrounding the behaviour. For Wienstein it was well known he was an abuser. But no one wanted to come forward for fear of never working again.

[sjoes006]

1 in 7 people on death row in Texas are innocent statistically.

They've been get fair trials and the whole suspect line up or flip book is flawed forcing the victim to pick the best match.

The one word I'm tired of hearing is "media". Broad term meaning any actor that participates in agame of telephone and rumors like Perez Hilton.

Media, media , media...

You can lashout as a private citizen but not POTUS. And the people covering his beat are journalists and reporters doing their best to keep personal beliefs out and be balanced.

Trump got a fair analysis on his Asia trip so far.

Reporting is media but lot all media is reporting. Such as thia post.

[reixun]

Innocent until proven guilty

[bag-lady-purple]

Human nature

[GayHowellMeme]

I agree with the first poll.

[LeeKenz]

Yes because that's what the constitution states

[Anonymous]

The judicial system that we have, when you are arrested, 99% of the time, the evidence is there and that's why you are guilty until proven innocent.
Perfect world would be the other way around.

[Anonymous]

hey older and wiser-
I am not sure that i approve of the way you framed the question. And I also believe that you could have provided a number of answers that might have unpacked the ramifications of this question without being so one sided.
At least I understand on what side of the political fence you stand. One thing we can both agree on though, this event is sure to polarize our country even more than it presently is.

[DesiBeautyLover]

In reality, you're guilty unless proven innocent. As soon as those hand cuffs you're presumed guilty. In court, you're trying to prove your innocence. Everything they tell you is bullshit

[ThisDudeHere]

But of bloodyfuckingcourse they should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Any other way is barbaric.

[NearlyNapping]

If they were arrested, I assume they are guilty, because they probably are. This is the reason why anyone in jail or prison who claims they are innocent will just get laughed at.

However the burden of proof is still on the state. If I were on a jury, the prosecution will have to make their case.

As for the media, this is one reason why I quit watching news 25 years ago. They sensationalize everything. I think news should be dry and boring, not entertainment and big business. The days of poker faced news is long past.

Personally I don't think even the name of the accused should be published, let alone milking it for everything they can. This is partly the fault of the public who eat this stuff up. As long as people keep watching / reading every little tidbit of information the media can dig up, the media will keep doing it. The media sells what people want.

People are so busy soaking up every bit of gossip they can, that thoughts of guilt or innocence don't even enter their mind any more. It's a weird form of voyeurism that people are completely fascinated with. The media is big business, and will continue feeding the frenzy as long as they can.

I never agreed with cameras in the courtroom. I never agreed with publishing information on the accused. A jury by peers, and a public trial, are supposed to protect us, not condemn us. The intentions may be fine, but I'm not so sure about the results, at least not in the big highly publicized cases.

[dizmuhjam]

The second option gets voted by people who let themselves being manipulated. " ... but sometimes the allegations are "obviously" true". You dont know how many cases seemed so "obviously" true but where manipulated to get innocent people in jail.

[Cryostatic]

There is no legality in the court of public opinion.

I assume you're talking about Roy Moore. This is a situation in which there is little to no actual evidence one way or another, and all witness accounts are better than forty years old. It won't ever be investigated any further than this, as it's clearly past the statute of limitations.

However, there is the court of public opinion. And much like in an actual courtroom, by this being publicized the way it is, we're being asked to pick a side. And if you don't think a lot of court cases come down to "he said, she said" and picking a side, then you've clearly never served on a jury. They have to decide who they're going to believe.

And while there may not be any legal ramifications for judgements by the court of public opinion, there are certainly consequences. Right or wrong, people do make judgements about others. We do it all the time, and for things far more petty than criminal accusations, and without much evidence at all. Especially where public figures are concerned.

Hell, we even stick to those personal judgements once actual courts and investigations have yielded nothing, because that's how people work.

[hahahmm]

Look, celebrities and politicians love to use the media by leaking stories they want told, telling paparazzi where to find them and so on. They do it for 20-30 years making money off the media but then want to whine when somebody else uses the media to tell a story they don’t like? F-k em! Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[Purin]

In China, they lock you up first and then decide if you can be free. If you are innocent well get fked and rot in prison and serve the term anyways.

[heavygear40k]

Innocent until proven guilty. Except in some cases where evidence simply stacks against them such as video footage of crime. I mean seriously.

[vjedi]

The problem with the media in these cases is they tend to ruin peoples lives through the court of public opinion, which they largely control, despite a person's guilt or innocence.
I think the real question we should ask as a society is; do the accused deserve the public attention they receive, or do they have a reasonable right to privacy, at least until their trial has been complete.

[eziegler81]

With the way the legal system is now and innocent people are being charged for crimes they didn't commit, I believe more in being innocent until proven guilty. Most lawyers "proof" is so flimsy now a days.

[Edanurus]

Bit of all really, I don't agree with the presumption of innocence because I feel the courts are there to prove guilt not innocent.

So by not guilty I see it as we can't prove guilt but what the media is doing is nothing short of mob rule and I don't agree with that.

[Bandit74]

I believe that people should be "treated" as if they are innoscent, but the public can come up with their own opinions on whether or not they accused is innoscent.

For example, whenever a story comes out I usually make internal assumptions about the person's innocence, but I don't believe in making death threats or demanding that the person loses their job unless it can be proven that they did what they are accused of.

[blondfrog]

Voted B, but the legal rule here in the u. s. is that it's innocent until proven guilty. Sadly the media doesn't even believe in this and likes to frame people or misconstrue evidence. The main issue here is the stupid laws and petty laws that they have here. Like Casey Anthony was obviously guilty, but because of the legal court system not having "enough evidence" she was proven not guilty.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

I voted A, but meant to vote B.

I presume everyone is innocent until proven guilty unless the circumstanial evidence is overwhelming against them.

[markscott]

The courts wait for a verdict of innocent or guilty. You don't have to wait in your personal life. If it's obvious, or looks a whole like it's true, or you even have a real suspicion that it's true, you can act right away on what you know.

[RidingForever2]

Yes. Freedom of the press is only getting stronger and stronger while freedom of speech is eroding further and further. They media can produce whatever they want but soon we won't have the power to critisise them anymore.

[hornymike6969]

shouldn’t there be a time limit where you have to file charges how can you have evidence from 20 years ago

[Dragon6901]

The media outlets more often than not work with an agenda. For them to operate outside of that agenda would be to impede their own progress. Those who operate under such conditions as a matter of course cannot be objective.

[thinkaloudtolive]

@Astoriana the question isn't, "what does one gain from accusing someone of rape," the better question is "what does one lose once accused of rape."

Which is everything: job, family, friends, reputation, etc.

There are tons of cases where bitter women (and men) have accused someone of rape falsely. THIS is why you can't jump to conclusions about any case. Facts and evidence should always be considered before ignorantly sympathizing with an accuser.

[WhistleForTheChoir]

Not enough responses. In a court of law, you should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, the media is not state-run and therefore is essentially free to report as long as they don't threaten or knowingly slander the person in question. This freedom would be better left intact, despite the cons. Having a free press outweighs them I would think. Once the precedent has been set that restrictions can be placed on the free press in one way, it makes it easier to restrict the free press in other ways.

[Political_dude]

Innocent until proven guilty. No compromise on that. If man isn't guilty, he should not suffer for accusations.

[sinkotopius]

Unless the offender is caught in the act or fresh tracks are pressent, the offender shoud in my opinion be treated as innocent intill proven guilty by a fair and neutral trial with all evidence both for and against present.

[Alistayr]

That is essentially why we have legal systems. The general public, and press are always too keen on making snap judgements without all the relevant information.

[FakeName123]

Women benig more judgmental and not understanding the reasons behind "innocent until proven guilty".

What a surprise.

[Sixgun77]

I believe in the presumption of innocence add one of the cornerstones of justice in America. However, sometimes thers video evidence of the "alleged gunman" robbing the store. Is obvious he did it, but he still gets a fair trial.

The court of public opinion is dangerous, and we should not be demanding people's heads on a spike without a trial in a court of law.

[Decentguy]

Yes, I believe in the presumption of innocence ALWAYS

[ITKing]

If they are accused without any evidence, then they should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

The media is something else.

I don't think the media have too much power bc we the people can choose to ignore everything they talk about. They do have the C. I. A. working for and with them.

I wish the media would publicize ALL murder cases like how they for Trayvon Martin, Freddie Grey, Walter Scott, JonBenét Ramsey and many others bc I believe a lot of unsolved murders will get solved.

If we don't like what the media is doing we all can come together and start our own media company.

[Shuey]

Rumor has it that's the way the systems supposed to work. No real data to support that these days though.

[Likes2drive]

Innocent until proven guilty is what it’s supposed to be but the media can make anyone look guilty right from the start, that’s the power they have these days

[LegateLanius]

I believe in a fair trial, regardless of whether I think they did it.