Is it "Innocent until proven guilty" or "Guilty unless proven innocent"?

[KostasKouvalis]

I got into a debate with another Gagger on this matter earlier today. So MY argument for why I think it's "Guilty unless proven innocent" is...

This was the other person's argument...

Yeah, that's how our legal system works, but what's the actual logic behind it? What specifically is it that makes "Innocent until proven guilty" correct?

I stand by my argument, and one of my professors in college made the same argument. "Innocent until proven guilty" just doesn't make any sense. And is it, really? Take that guy who stabbed those people in Idaho. He didn't even have a trial and the police and media were already saying the guy did it. So how is that "Innocent until proven guilty"?

It's Guilty unless proven Innocent. If you believe it's "Innocent unless proven guilty" prove me wrong.

Also, just because someone is found "innocent" doesn't mean they didn't do it. It just means they had a good lawyer.

Likewise, how many people were found guilty who were actually innocent?

And I'm only talking about the US here. I'm not talking about corrupt countries where police will lock up a random person just so they don't look bad.

You're innocent until proven guilty

You're guilty unless proven innocent

It's both

It's neither

[Kelley1]

You're guilty unless proven innocent. If you are indicted, the conviction rate is about 90%. If you cannot prove you are innocent, you have two choices. 1. Take a plea and go to prison for a year or maybe probation, or else 2. go to trial, be charged with twenty crimes and go to prison for 10 to 20 years. 99% of juries will compromise and find you guilty on a minor charge. However, the way the system is rigged, regardless of what charge you are found guilty of, you sentence will be based the maximum major charge.

Almost all innocent people take pleas because that is what their lawyers advise. That is why at least half the people in prison never committed a crime. However, the public believe guilty people go free so they find everyone that goes to trial guilty even when there is no evidence except lies by people offered a lower sentence if they lie.

Be thankful that likely you will never be indicted, because if you are indicted, there is a 90% chance you will take a plea or be convicted.

[KostasKouvalis]

Thank you. I agree

[Kelley1]

Thank you for the MHO.

[alice55]

It's Innocent until proven guilty but a lot of people want to change that especially for sexual crime like some weeks ago Mbappe was accused of raping a Swedish woman but so far there's no proves at all and this shouldn't have gone out in the media but Sweden decided to accuse him on the media directly making him seem guilty without any proves.

In France some people belive in the Innocent until proven guilty and others just consider them guilty even without any proves because they "believe the victim".

They were video on TikTok about how people were outraged that 2 French rugby player who got accused in Argentinia of having raped a woman were coming back to France in their club.

[KostasKouvalis]

I didn't hear about that, but I'm honestly not surprised. Ronaldo was accused some years ago, but the charges were dropped. High profile celebrities are easy targets.

Usually in Europe they don't show face and last name of criminals, but celebrities are another thing.

This kind of stuff happens here all the time and suddenly that's all they remember the person for.

I didn't hear about any of this.

Damn. I thought you'd agree with me, but it's okay 😂

[alice55]

Qatar (PSG) was in legal trouble because they own 55 million euros to Mbappe but they refuse to pay and there's lots of rumor saying that it was most likely a scam to make Mbappe look bad (like this Qatar hoped the judge wouldn't force them to pay).

Or just a regular money scam.

It depend sometime they show the face and sometime no, it depend on their mood I guess.
I find it stupid the show the face of the accused person celebrities or not as our laws is innocent until proven guilty so it make no sense.

Here they don't care about it especially if it's football player XD
Some years ago some woman also accused Neymar of rape but people just remember him for his drama queen attitude on the flied more than the accusation XD

I guess American media don't care that much about French celebrities.

Innocent until proven guilty exist because it's better to let a criminal roam free i the street than put man innocent behind bar, also doubt should always benefit the accused person.

If you go by guilty until... it mean the guy will be shunned by everyone, fried of his work , etc... and what happen if he's proven innocent? That' the worts things can happen. I don't get how people can think it's a good things?

[KostasKouvalis]

I'm honestly not surprised

Here too. I gave an example.
And when Casey Anthony was found "not guilty" the jury members recieved death threats.

I believe it, because there was a famous French director a while ago who got caught up in a #MeToo scandal and one actress even committed suicide, and French people were saying it doesn't change that he was a great director.

The craziest one I saw was some guy in India lit his wife on fire and he was working as a school teacher during his prison sentence. The parents said they don't care about his crime because he's a good teacher.

They usually don't, but the one about the director was big news though. And footballers they only talk about American players and Ronaldo and Messi.

That already happens anyways. Even if he's found innocent, it's hard to recover from that.

Also, our prison culture is very different. In Europe prisons are for rehabilitation and keeping the public safe, whereas here, they're for punishing people

[alice55]

Some people are just plain crazy, even when the person is proven innocent they would still consider the person guilty..

Maybe, but that's true though no the fact he was anasshoels doesn't change the fact his movies were great? Just like the fact that a lot of writer were racist doesn't change the fact their book were well written. (it's actually causing a bit of a mess with young generation of immigrant of they refuse to read those books).

I mean if he's a great teacher and not violent towards the children it's ok? I don't see how he would be a threat being the bar anyway
About the wife lit on fire I heard bout it often in India or even throwing acid to their wife, it's common there so it do not even surprise me that some don't care for it.

While in France we never talk about American player so I guess it's fair game XD

Depend on where he live if he live in the countryside in a conservative area people would not care and would protect him.
In big city either people wouldn't care or he would get harassed.

Depend French prison are nothing like Norwegian one, they're dirty, too hot in summer too cold in winter and we have a huge problem of too much inmate in one cell.
Also there's no real rehabilitation either because not enough money for it.

[KostasKouvalis]

Yes! Like they're doing with Trump.

Here too. There was a big controversy about "Huckelberry Finn" a few years ago. But those books were written when times were different. People weren't so sensitive and racism was more mainstream. There are a lot of books, movies and songs that could never be released. But it's only White artists who censor their own work. Black artists don't.

Yeah, the women didn't even care. There was once a guy in Florida who flew his relatives over from India just to beat his wife.

I don't see why you would. And the US rarely cares about things that don't involve the US. But other countries do the same with history, though it's the reverse with pop culture. US pop culture is everywhere.

Yes, this is actually kind of true, unless they break the law.

[alice55]

The worst is there's no racism in the actual books just that the writer is know to be a racist and it bother people.

Indian people are quite special
they're honestly pretty scary in that regard

yes and no it been fews years there less and less American pop culture on French tv, French have created lots of French tv show to replace the American one.

yes

[KostasKouvalis]

Well some of them have racial slurs, but I know what you mean.

Yeah. They have so many beautiful things and I find their culture interesting, but I'm kind of scared to go there honestly, even though me and my mom discussed maybe going to Goa before, but then changed our minds. My mom said she would die from the food😂

Yeah, I read somewhere that France passed a law limiting the number of American songs that can be played on the radio stations. I forgot what the exact percentage was, but it they said the majority of songs played must be French songs.

[alice55]

Indian food is really good, I cook it at home and taste super flavorful but in India the hygiene is just horrible, you can't even use tap water to brush your teeth it's crazy.

This exist since many years even as a child this existed, it's a good things.
It's like 60 % percent of song that must be French.

[KostasKouvalis]

I know. I answered a question about Indian food earlier. There was an Indian comedian who joked that there is a difference between Indian FOOD and Indian CUISINE.
Some British guy said Western version is less healthy but has better flavor.
But it's also cleaner too. A lot of foods taste better outside their country of origin.

Oh really? I think so too honestly. I love American/British music, but when I'm in another country I wanna hear local music. Hearing Aerosmith in a Greek island village is so strange to me

[alice55]

The British version of Indian food is actually better than Indian food, it does taste better that's sure. My favorite Indian dishes is Tikka Massala and it have been invented by British. It taste so much better than all the others dishes (even if I love the others too).
It's true for example Italian cuisine taste better in France, like every person I talked to that went to Italy told me it was dry and it tasted better in France even though they went to restaurant that had good note.

That must be so awkward that's sure XD
Though if i heard a French song in another country I would be happy and proud

[KostasKouvalis]

My favorite is Lamb Biryani.

Same, yet so many people defend it. Even here i got attacked for criticizing Italian food. It seems people either love it or hate it.

It was the same in Turkey. The food was so dry and bland. Only Caribbean food tasted better in the Caribbean.

When I was in Malta they were randomly playing the French anthem😂

[RavVid]

First Police should not arrest a person unless they have cause to believe that person is guilty of a crime and trial should not proceed unless it is considered possible to obtain conviction.

Innocent till proven guilty is a statement that the police and prosecutor must prove you are guilty. It goes further in that there must be a defense possible. if I think a person is about to kill me i can defend against a murder charge by arguing self defense.

The media might regard people guilty immediately on an allegation being made. Typically it does if it is a sexual allegation. Police have to consider there is sufficient evidence of guilt to charge. So it goes without saying there is a presumption of guilt.

But a court trial is different. 'Beyond shadow of a doubt' is the criminal standard for conviction and it is entirely on the prosecution to prove that. All the defense has to do is to show the prosecution hasn't met that standard and there is doubt.

So you are wrong but in practice however I think the prosecution has to prove guilt and the defense has to prove innocence.

[purplepoppy]

If I commit a crime but there's not enough evidence to convict I'm still guilty of even if they pass a not guilty verdict. Similarly as i await trial I'm not innocent because I have commited the crime. Scotland gets around the problem with a third option "not proven" which means there's not enough evidence to convict but sufficient to cast doubt on your innocence i. e. we know you did it but can't prove it.

The fact is the police do not arrest you unless there's a significant amount of evidence you're guilty. It's too time consuming and expensive to prosecute. Very few innocent people stand trial but lots of guilty people are found not guilty due to "reasonable doubt" and technicalities.

[KostasKouvalis]

That's what I told that guy.
Scotland is smarter.

Maybe in the UK they don't but elsewhere😂

Exactly, thank you. That's pretty much what I said for some reason this concept is so difficult for Americans to grasp.

[AviatorTom]

It depends what country you are in

In the United States, in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. In civil cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant is guilty beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In both cases... Innocent until proven guilty.

In some other countries, Italy, France Iran and others, as I understand it, the accused is presumed to be guilty and must prove their innocence.

[KostasKouvalis]

Exactly. "Beyond a reasonable doubt". I don't know if you've ever seen 88 minutes. There was a scene where Al Pacino says, "Some took my condom out of the garbage and put my semen inside her vagina to frame me for rape!"

His partner said, "Do you know how absurd that sounds?"

Pacino replied, "It's not absurd!"

I agree with Pacino. My geology professor also used the example of a long lost evil twin committing crimes. He said, "as absurd as it sounds, is there a slight chance that I'm telling the truth."

Yes there is! That's why I think you should scrutinize everything in a trial and look at every possibility.

[Syntosi]

First of all, its important to make the distinction that "innocent until proven guilty" is supposed to be applied in court. You are entirely free to form your own conclusions as a private citizen.

But "Innocent until proven guilty" is a safety mechanism. You can't always prove you are innocent which means if they base their assumption on you being guilty in court you might not be able to prove your innocence and result in a lot of wrongful convictions.

As for the quality of the legal system and policing, we can't really make special laws that tries to "correct" for a broken system. If the police are corrupt then you need to fix that separately rather than try to adapt the legal code.

[KostasKouvalis]

That second paragraph makes no sense to me, especially since "innocent" and "not guilty" mean pretty much the same thing

[Syntosi]

Let me try rephrase that then.

There is a fundamental difference between proving something and proving a negative. You can take religion or science or any other kind of scenario you want. Lets take the existence of God as an example.

There are some pretty definitive ways that we can prove that one particular version of God exist such as them showing up on earth and go "Whats up my boi!" or whatever. However to prove a negative, that no gods exists, requires a much higher level of proof. For example, even if you prove that God A does not exist, what about God B or God C etc.. You would have to provide proof that it would be impossible for ANY god to exist.

If we go back to the example in court we have two starting assumptions. Either you assume that the person is innocent, at which point you need to prove that they are guilty. Or you start with the assumption that they are guilty and you need to prove that they are innocent.

[Syntosi]

If we assume they are innocent and have to prove that they are guilty then we can do that by proving something specific. Person A did this in that location and therefore committed a crime as an example.

Proving that you are innocent however can be, but is not always much harder. For example, perhaps a person was shot but you prove that you do not legally own a firearm. That by itself would not prove your innocence since they can make the claim that you could illegally own a firearm and if you somehow prove that you also dont own an illegal firearm they could argue that you could have borrowed a firearm from a friend and if you magically prove you did not then they could argue that you perhaps just found it etc...

Getting to a point where you can realistically prove your innocence might be impossible without very specific pieces of evidence in your favor such as a foolproof alibi that functions as the first example and places you at a specific place and doing specific things. Without perfect evidence you would be screwed as a defendant in such a system regardless if you are guilty or not.

This is a bit of a rambly answer but I hope that going into extra depth has helped to clarify rather than confuse further.

[CalmUntilAbused]

It's still innocent until proven guilty. They can arrest You in order to question You, otherwise, if You were actually guilty, You'd have time to tamper with evidence, but if there find no proof of Your guilt, they will be forced by the law to release You. Sure, You might get a few months, or sometimes years behind in life, but You will usually be compensated for it, and that's exactly because if You were not proven guilty, You are considered innocent and therefore eligible for compensation for the unfounded arrest.

[KostasKouvalis]

"You'd have time to tamper with evidence"

Well yeah. Who wants to get a guilty verdict?

[Snakeyes7]

In an ideal society, you want the least amount of the innocent punished as possible as punishing the innocent does more damage to the credibility of a justice system than them letting the guilty go based on the fact that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

John Adams explains how a lack of due process ruins a society very well:

"if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever."

[NaultD]

The idea of innocent until proven guilty is to limit the state as it's more powerful than the average person. We can't have tax funded behemoth have unilaterally power.

So this is why you have more rights being on the defense for criminal trials. While we can have civil lawsuits they are for damages not tine in jail.

[FreyaRed]

"You're innocent until proven guilty"
This since beginning of civilization that way because of very good reasons. What doesn't mean most law system try to turn this rule around, mostly because a sentence proves their competency and often brings money for those who find a scapegoat.

[Gwendoline]

You are innocent until proven guilty. In other words they authorities might suspect you of a crime, may even have concrete evidence but until the judgement or ruling of guilt in a court of law you are innocent.

[Makeushiver]

With criminal law the theory is innocent to proven guilty. However, this does not seem to apply to the August institution called, belovedly, the IRS

[Dargil]

Its A for a Democrat
Its B for a Republican.

For now...

[Anonymous]

You are arrested so that you do not flee prosecution until your day in court to prove yourself innocent. A lot of people are released with an ankle monitor. Depends on the crime.