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'.
By the way, @devilman666 explained this very nicely and I would like to add that the burden of proof ALWAYS lies on the person making a claim. This is a fundamental cornerstone of enlightened thinking. For example it is no different in science. If I claim that I recently invented a time travel machine in my garage and demand to receive the Nobel Prize in Physics for this, I will have to provide actual proof. The Nobel Prize committee won't just believe on hearsay and they also won't accept the notion that THEY should be the ones to proof me wrong. Most people understand that the statement "I invented a time machine, now proof me wrong or award me!" is idiotic and makes no sense.
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.
>> [...] those that are in that position are most likely guilty (of at least a part of what they're being accused of) and the chances of them being innocent are 1 in a million.
I don't know if this is truly a guilty until proven innocent mindset. How could the chance of someone being innocent be 1 in a million or anything close if there's no evidence of guilt beyond a mere accusation?
How about all the wrongdoing you were accused of growing up? There was never a case where you were falsely accused of doing something you didn't do?
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.
Not to mention that when an innocent person is incarcerated, it also means that the guilty party is still afoot. So really, any time you condemn the innocent you also inadvertently pardon the guilty.
So I was wrong, a system that upholds "guilty until proven innocent" increases the chances of both happening.
All the more reason to choose "innocent until proven guilty".
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're a murderer. You deserve death penalty
"Proven innocent by lack of evidence" wrong, innocence Cannot be proven except through an alibi, and even then it's shaky. At best, lack of evidence is simply admitting you can't currently prove guilt with the current evidence. That's why the judge says guilty or not guilty, not guilty or innocent.
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.
I won't... no worries.
(Even though, I did consider being a politician...)
I agree. Haha
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.
Otherwise, it could be a Salem Witch trial all over again.
I accuse you of being a witch. Prove to me that you're not a witch.
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.
Innocent until proven guilty obviously, however in reality, for the most part, it's innocent until proven guilty, however I think in people's minds, if there's a high profile case of accused sexual assault for example, people have the idea of guilty until proven innocent, that person is stained with that accusation by people even when they're proven innocent, so in instances like that people are in the mindset of guilty, even thought they are proved innocent
Your a murderer, there prove your innocence there a 1 in a million chance I'm wrong by your logic.
The problem with guilty until proven innocent is that you are inevitablebly going to convict inoccent people for crimes because they can't prove their innocence, how would you go about doing that? I'd rather a million guilty people got off than one innocent person gets sentenced to something they didn't do.
The idea of guilty until proven innocent is what fueled the Salem witch trials and numerous other atrocities. What if you broke my heart or were a business rival? I could simply accuse you of a crime to get revenge or give myself a leg up in business.
I study law so I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately the world doesn't work that way and people will believe whatever someone is accused of if they want to believe it. The reality of it is that there are 2 sides to every story and some people are vindictive. Reasons why vigilantism is a crime in and of itself, to stop people taking the law into their own hands and stringing up an innocent man.
Innocent until proven guilty. Because I'm not a dunce.
The point of innocent until proven guilty was so no torture would be allowed that would cause accused to admit to crimes they didn't commit. That's what happens when you assume guilt until innocence is proven.
Guilty until proven innocent would be an extremely unjust system. We can all be glad the justice system in place in most countries is the other way around.
"Believe"? It is the core principle of law. You can't just have one person come out an accuse someone and send them off to jail. There must be some proof of a crime occurring and show this person did it.
That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.~Benjamin Franklin
The assumption of guilt taints the notion of a fair trial.
I think it depends on the person. Their background, of their trying to improve their life, and the circumstances around it. Witnesses also matter but sometimes witnesses lie too.
How so? We kind of need concrete reason to assume guilt in something, correct?
For example, what kind of person would be assumed guilty?
Gupi is basically begging to make false punishments, it's really easy to get someone in a legal battle, very abuse able.
Iupg is fair while it may be slower in terms of justice but it's much fairer, it's less abuse able and less false punishments.
I'm ALL about innocent till proven guilty.
But to be very honest and blunt, as a black American, I don't feel as if I get that luxury 100% of the time.
Wow! You're a whole heap of stupid and moronic, all wrapped up in a shitball of inbred idiocy. How did you get to be SO EXTREMELY STUPID. Presumption of guilt means if a cop decides he doesn't like your face, he can just KILL YOU and say afterwards he presumed you were guilty of mass murder.
Opening with ad hominem, nice. Did you know that's considered an automatic loss in a debate?
While your last comment is true, your idea that presumption of guilt would allow police to kill someone because they don't like their face is not.
For that to happen, police would ALSO need to be given the authority to decide sentences, which is currently the job of a judge.
@Sixgun77, okay, cite the legislation that mandates an "automatic" loss for anything in "a debate". Now, show that we're even IN a debate rather than just shooting our mouths off on a silly-ass web site.
As for the police having authority to sentence and execute on the spot, in the USA, that is not actually determined on a de facto basis. So long as the cop can say "I was SKEERED fer mah life!"...
Innocent until proven guilty. Having it the other way around is objectively malicious no matter the crime, as it means that a mere accusation made can ruin a person's record or life. Thankfully though, that never happens.
(Oh wait...)
People are not usualy trained to prove anything, so even in case of non guilty person, this person under stress could easily appears as
2nd points many cops are corrupted, in case a criminal paid him to put on jail, you'll have no options...
Innocent until proven guilty of course. Any one can get unlucky and be falsely accused of something the didn’t do.
American Forefathers thought was, it is better to let 100 guilty go free than to imprison a single innocent. it is the back bone to American law.
Innocent until proven guilty. Because otherwise just anyone could be send to prison without any good evidence. And this would not be DEMOCRACY anymore but a DIKTATORSHIP
*Dictatorship friend
Yeah sorry, this is not my native language. And the last time I really used it to writte something was 6 years ago
Police can be very lazy. They will pin some crimes on anyone that can fit the profile,
The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of the American system of justice. Let's keep it that way.
Look at rape cases and child sex assaults, a lot turn out to be false accusations, especially rape, We had it recently with two Ulster rugby players now unable to play for their club because the damage of the case
Well, I don't know about you, but I live in the states, and here in the states, we have these things we call rights
I am you are neither until you show me who you are as a person.
oh always innocent till proven guilty... guilty till proven innocent is a risky road hahaha...
I don't believe in either, really. But more so innocent until.
I believe in suspect until proven innocent or guilty.
Theoreticaly it's innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, it's actually the other way.
As a future criminal defense attorney, I have to believe that one is innocent until proven guilty.
Everyone deserves a fair trial.
I don't think it can be fair just assuming the person is guilty.
Thank god that not many women study law otherwise judicial system would have become a joke.
*In most countries, it already is... And those countries are patriarchal societies even to this day. =)
Guilty until proven Rich/Innocent until proven Poor.
You got to be an absolute moron to believe in guilty until proven innocent.
Guilty until proven innocent is extremely dangerous thinking!
I believe in the innocent until proven guilty. But where I'm from down Way South Georgia its Guilty until proven innocent
Its much harder to prove innocence than it is to prove guilt. Assumption isn't fact.
That only applies to the justice system, not in the court of public opinion.
If you are saying guilty until proven innocent. You have some issues.
Depends some people would say the person is innocent until proven guilty and some will like the other way
Innocent until proven guilty
Trust no one and nothing then the surprise them being guilty won't be as prevalent
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions