Once you abandon the concept of being innocent until proven guilty, you also abandon the concept of a fair and just system. May as well get the 9mm and go put a bullet in the head of every person you suspect to be guilty. Save tons of money on due process and incarceration. I think what you are seeing is an effect of where the "burden of proof" lies these days. It used to be that the burden of proof was shared equally between plaintiff and defendant, but these days it seems all the "proof" that is required on the plaintiff side is crown council or a government authority pointing a finger, and the entire burden rests upon the defendant. We have accepted "authority" in all its forms way to easily, we assume that people in a position of authority will act in our "best interest" and be impartial. Wake up! They are people, and as such, will act in their own best interests, not yours. Always question authority, do it politely, and do your homework, know what you are taking about, at least, it will make them stop and think "am I doing my job properly"? It may even impact the outcome of what you face.
Innocent until proven guilty." seems something from an idealistic past.
Mores change. :p
Defiantly innocent until proven guilty. If it were the other way around, lets say an innocent man was in custody for murder while an investigation was taking place (with the guilty until proven innocent), that could affect his job, the way his society sees him, absolutely everything. It can be a traumatic time for someone who is innocent, imagine being locked in a cell for days on end, thinking you could be spending possibly the rest of your life in there for no reason? You wouldn't like that, I'm sure.
In British law at least, it is wholly and solely up to the accuser to prove beyound all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
Therefore it has to be, and always will be "Innocent Until Proven Guilty".
The Title Holds True for me When I only Pretty Much have the Answer in my own Bag of Tricks. I'm Slick. xx
guilty until proven innocent. trust no one in this fucking hellhole of a world, rawr
Opinion
56Opinion
Then, I'm sorry to say it, you are an authoritarian or have the mindset of an authoritarian.
I love democracy and I consider myself a democrat (with a small "d"), so it is obvious and self-understanding to me that the correct attitude should be 'innocent until proven guilty'.
Innocent until proven guilty, because I'd rather mistake a guilty person as innocent rather than an innocent person as guilty.
On top of that, I don't see innocence as something you can effectively prove. How do you prove that a friend never betrays you? Follow them around all day? Plant bugs in their possessions? Spy on them inside their homes?
Being suspicious this way by default is often an effective way to not only ward off potential enemies, but possibly some great and loyal allies, and I don't find it that great of a mystery why people with trust issues, for example, often end up lonely and miserable.
Unbelievable result of the girls, incredibly vengeful and unfair attitude. People can get there entire life destroyed with this kind if a the girl who cried rape attitude and it also causes people to stop victims seriously. There should always be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt when you convict someone or your destroying innocent peoples lives. I am incredibly loving and understanding, but if something like this where to happen to me you can bet i would become incredibly vengefull to the instigator.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a precautionary measure to prevent the wrongful accusation, punishment, or conviction of an individual without evidence. It is a hypothesis that needs to be tested. Everyone is PRESUMED innocent unless they are found (beyond a reasonable doubt) to be guilty. Often, people who are TRULY innocent may be incorrectly presumed to be guilty.
This therefore begs the question: What would you do?
Punish 10 individuals knowing that 1 is innocent, or
Set all 10 free?
Neither outcome is really good, but what is worse?
If you say that Punishing all of them, ask yourself this question: How would you feel if you were the 1 truly innocent person among them?
A system that upholds "innocent until proven guilty" decreases the odds of condemning the innocent, but increases the odds of pardoning the guilty.
A system that upholds "guilty until proven innocent" decreases the odds of pardoning the guilty, but increases the odds of condemning the innocent.
I believe in "innocent until proven guilty" because between condemning the innocent and pardoning the guilty, the latter is the lesser of the two evils.
Legally, innocent till proven guilty.
In my opinion? It's based on what I see, credibility of claims, etc.
False accusations get thrown around -all the time-. You can't take something like the percentage of cases brought by prosecutors to criminal trial where subsequent evidence proves the accusation was false and then apply THAT percentage to all public allegations. First off, most false allegations can't be proven false - they're more likely to be part of the 'not guilty' band but not PROVEN to be false. Second, the cases that are actually brought to trial by prosecutors are the -strongest- cases where police are brought in. Third, people creating false allegations are -less- likely to go to the police. So where there's just a verbal accusation, a far higher rate are fake (and this is true of ANY allegations, not just sexual assault).
i chose B) Guilty until proven innocent but there are some people that has done terrible things but has gotten away with it because they were proven innocent due to lack of evidence. some were stupid and were at court again for doing the same thing and was sent to prison, some would even bribe a corrupt cop or blackmail to make the evidence disappear, or threaten the witness to not show up. but these are only rare cases that involve gang leaders or very rich people that can manipulate the law to get away with things they did.
You raped me last week on Tuesday at 12:30am
There, prove your innocence, do you have a reliable alibi for the night in question?
This is clearly wrong, we assume innocence because the evidence should support the claim and thus prove they are wrong. If we assume guilt then we are asking them for proof of what they were doing at that time, which anyone may or may not have for a specific time and place. You can't always have an alibi, it's almost impossible.
That's how justice works it has to be proven that somebody did something wrong. Its for our own protection, to protect our own rights. Who decides who's innocent who's guilty? Without due process no one is guilty.
Guilty until proven innocent, that's how authoriarianism works. You're locked up without trial and its up to you decide if you're guilty or innocent. What if there is no evidence and the person is actually innocent? Should somebody be able to cry rape and the individual locked up, putting the burden on him to prove he did nothing wrong.
That is slippery slope if we start declaring people guilty without due process. We all have certain rights which can not be violated. Innocent until proven guilty is that right granted to us for our own protection.
I hope for your sake you never get on the wrong side of the law.
u Innocent untill proven always.
Flipping that has to high a chance to incarcerate a innocent man yes it's shitty but it should always be in favour of a innocent man then just putting someone behind bars
That's not true at all. People are accused of things all the time whether they're true or not, especially when they're wealthy. People like to say that wealthy people are acquitted of more crimes because of their money, but the thing is its far more likely that they're falsely accused of crimes they didn't commit precisely because they're wealthy and can provide fat settlements
Innocent until proven guilty. Even if statistically more people commit crime, the burden of proof still holds. By default, you're innocent. The claim is guilty. Just because most people accused of rape actually raped, doesn't mean that the person you prosecute necessarily committed rape. And how is the defendant suppose to prove innocence in this system? The prosecution can make their claims an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
If we did it as "guilty until proven innocent" I could say you stabbed me. And you'd have to prove you didn't rather than me prove you did.
People would be falsely convicted constantly because as soon as you disagree with someone you just call the police, say they did X then they have to prove they didn't. If they can't then they're locked up.
Courts would be full of false accusations and the real criminals would just be in the waiting list.
In my perspective you have done nothing wrong until I have prove that you did. I feel like accusing people without good evidence is just plain rude.
You can't say anything on this. Sometimes innocents are framed, sometimes misconceptions takes place, and sometimes guilty are caught. So you cannot say it actually unless you know it already or more than 50% sure about it. If someone asks me, i won't reveal it at all because i dont want to be the one putting black spot if he is innocent.
Depends on what. Most of the time, police arrest you because there are evidences to back it up.
But recently with all that metoo bullshit, you can't know, since any woman can accuse you of anything and she's trusted without any other proof than her word.
Interesting thoughts. I love people who have bizarre views on society, although I suspect it's a troll post. SO I gotta do what I gotta do, I suggest finding evidence of you not trolling to prepare for G@G court
Ok dailing G@G police to arrest you for trolling.
Innocent until proven guilty. You can't be guilty until evidence is gathered to form a case against you. The term guilty until proven innocent is a result of social media where people jump to conclusions and demonize everyone without knowing all of the facts.
In an age where false accusations of sexual assault are being used to destroy innocent lives and gynocentric society pushes the "Believe her" mentality without question... we need to have innocent until proven guilty.
Most Helpful Opinions