Should the presumption of innocence in criminal matters be continued?

Question

You know, the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't that let all sorts of guilty criminals off the hook? Shouldn't we change this so people don't get away with terrible crimes? What about those child molesters with victims too young to speak? I think people with certain political views have the right idea about this terrible problem.

MrOracle · Accepted Answer

It is better for 100 guilty go free than one innocent person be imprisoned.

This is not the main problem with the justice system. Not even close. The real problem is that we have Soros-funded DAs that refuse to charge criminals (very often with long records) with crimes because of their race, political status, etc., and judges who give light sentences to career criminal, and governors who close prisons to force the early release of criminals, all of which has the effect of putting career criminals back on the streets and encourages them to continue committing crimes in the knowledge that any future punishments will be mild.

If police and prosecutors can't put a good case together to convict someone, then either they are incompetent (if it keeps happening over time) or their suspect is likely innocent. And if a few get away with it, that's far better than sending an innocent person to jail.

Most criminals re-offend constantly, so there will be plenty of opportunities to convict them.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

innocent until proven guilty should still be the rule regardless of identity or action

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

I am neither but it should be kept. Changing it provides incentive to make false accusations and the onus should not be on the accused to disprove the accusation, which can be impossible.

MisterWack · Answer

Innocent until proven guilty depending on the context for me. If the evidence provided to the public out-ways any possible notion of innocence then it is guilty to me. There is the court of law and the court of popular opinion. In legal speak I stand by notion of innocence before guilt and in court of public opinion innocent/guilty though it is important to leave bias out when analyzing everything.

Avicenna · Answer

Yes, you don’t want the accused to have to prove their innocence given the disparity between their resources and those of the prosecutors.

goaded · Answer

It's only the judge and jury that have to presume innocence, anyone else can have their own opinions.

If there's no (or insufficient) evidence, there's no way to convict someone, anything else leads to literal witch hunts.

DrPepper12 · Answer

So just toss the cornerstone of our jurisprudence? GTFOH with that. Yes, rarely the guilty go free and rarely the innocent are prisoned.

What group are you referring to with the right political views that would support this?

exitseven · Answer

I am a Republican. We should scrap it the way it is now. If a Democrat is guilty he usually skates. If a Rebublican is innocent he still gets 30 years in prison on some fake charge.

Should the presumption of innocence in criminal matters be continued?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should the presumption of innocence in criminal matters be continued?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.