Is everyone entitled to benefit of the doubt (innocent until proven guilty)?

[OtterMan68]

In today's political climate, if a person in party A is accused of wrong doing, the people in party B start treating him like he's already guilty and vice versa

If a famous person is accused of wrong doing, people start assuming guilt.

If a person is arrested for a heinous crime, people start calling for cruel methods of execution.

Should we not treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty no matter their political leanings, what they are accused of, or fame?

[NamerOfStars]

Absolutely. But that's never been a popular idea when it comes to putting it into practice, so it makes you pretty unpopular to call for it.

When Brett Kavanaugh was up for the Supreme Court, the Democrats were determined to stop him- fair enough. But they seemed to think that all they needed was an accusation, and that should end his chances. An accusation, with absolutely NO evidence, and an inconsistent story behind it, at that.

Even *I* was concerned when I found myself thinking "thank goodness that unqualified boob got himself a lifetime appointment!". But the precedent the alternative would've set... McCarthy would be proud.

[NaultD]

Yes we do. Ever been to jury duty?

12 get picked by both plaintiffs equally with regression out of 78 people potentially more as needed. Hazza you got a jury of peers.

Then the moment you are called as a formal jury member. Not even in a daze as an excuse but somber moment of crippling responsibility rests on your shoulders. This is not the time to fuck around and find out. You have a duty to fulfill and it rests on your heart.

No matter the crime or who is involved. The overwhelming drive of community and doing right for all of our neighbors is an amazing thing. That's why a jury of peers is an amazing thing.

[Kelley1]

The Jury pool is not random. The questionnaire is used to preselect in favor of the prosecution.

[purplepoppy]

No. I think past behaviour is a good indicator of guilt and more reliable than evidence.

[VanillaBomb]

I will say yes

[RebelinSteel]

Yes but it does not work like that. If you had kids and the person that normally looked after them, babysitter, child minder etc, was arrested for something bad where they were accused of something bad with other kids etc. Would you still let them look after your kids? Same if a father of your son / daughter friend was accused of rape, would you let your kids still sleep over at their friends? Humans naturally go for the safe option which means we assume guilt.

[OtterMan68]

there's a reason some people are arrested and held prior to trial. I'm not saying that we can't have suspicions

[RebelinSteel]

Suspicious means not presuming innocence. Not everyone is held until trial. People will judge others that are arrested as guilty or as you say suspicion but that’s not the same as thinking of them as innocent.

[ChicoFromThe305]

Nope, not everyone does, I think the benefit of the doubt should be just that, a benefit, so it should be with people that deserve a benefit of a doubt.

[exitseven]

No Trump is automatically guilty. So isn't everyone that voted for him. And anyone who was in DC on Jan6th should be put in prison.

[strateguy632]

should be... but trump is a target of HATE ergo different.

[Kelley1]

No! We are guilty until proven innocent.

[DryGermanGuy]

😬😬😬

[Agape93]

In the courts, yeah