Innocent Until Proven Guilty

In the United States, as well as most other countries around the world, we have the "innocent until proven guilty" policy. I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I realized that if the policy holds true, then why does one have to go to jail until one's trial comes? If I am accused of something, I haven't been convicted yet (at least not until my trial.) Many people who have been arrested and charged with horrible crimes (notably Casey Anthony) have to wait years until a jury listens to their case. Anthony has to wait around 3 years just for a chance to prove her innocence. I really do not get the judicial system if it's own laws do not apply. If anyone could make sense of this, I'd like to know.

 

I've thought about this too. This does seem like a flaw in the justice system.

 

It is an ultimate flaw in our judicial system, just as the idea that our Attorney Generals can use millions of tax-funded dollars on cases that have no real strength behind them and not be punished for it... ever.

 

Thanks for your input. If the judicial system and ultimately, the government, can't abide by their own set laws, it doesn't deserve to be a government. They need to fix this immediately.

 

It's similar to the recent passing of a law that says it is a felony (meaning you could go to prison for many years for it) if you video tape a police officer while he pulls you, or someone else, over.

Basically all police have video camera's on the hood of their cars, some in more area's than just that, yet citizens can not video tape the police - it's a double standard.

 

So police officers are exempt from the law? The United Statesian government needs to double-check their laws. Who knows what other laws are similar to these?

 

You think something thats been in place for 200 years is going to be changed all of a sudden?

 

Have you ever heard of an amendment?

 

It's that kind of thinking that prevents something from being changed.

In the case you're mentioning, that person can actually be acquitted of all crimes since they were not given a fair and speedy trial. 3 years is way past the limit. They can also seek retribution up to their experience from the state requiring to be paid in full the amount they could have earned had they not been incarcerated.

It's possible, just hard to pull off and will give you a huge headache.

 

Have you ever heard how long the process would take? Things just don't happen "immediately".

You guys act like they don't see a judge at all. The judge decides the bail, trial date (if needed), and other things.

 

Well said. In my opinion, it would be worth it. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution states we're given the right to a fair and speedy trial. I'm sure this wasn't what Congress had in mind by "speedy." I believe that bailing someone out of jail should be abolished and that one must be convicted of a crime before being imprisoned.

 

As stated above, bail and trial date shouldn't exist.

I'm sure it would be worth it, no matter the time wasted debating.

 

You Never Know They Don't Put You In Jail Until Trail You May Plan An Escape If You Know Your Going To Be Proven Guilty

 

Oh, because that's what we're talking about.

 

Lets face it, they can't get to every single person right after there arrested.

if there is no holding, the amount of people not showing up to there court date would skyrocket. At least with bail, if they do decide to show up to there court date, they get there money back. That just makes it way too easy for criminals to get away.

 

Destruction of evidence. The police need to get to your house/car/crime scene etc. before you do, so they keep you locked up to get time to investigate. I agree 3 years is ridiculous though.

 

I'm currently about to go to Law School, to become a lawyer. However, I know this much.

In order for the police to be able to arrest you, they must have proof you actually did the crime. And if your out committing crimes, such as : robbery, breaking and entering, assault, etc.. then yeah, you should be put in a place where you can't harm anyone.

But if the cops have no proof of you actually doing the crime, they can't touch you.

 

Maybe you don't understand what your talking about?
"The presumption of innocence (the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty) is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial,"

 

If only dude. When you do a bit of travelling out of school youll see that that way you guys do it is still alot better then most others out there.

 

He is held in jail as a suspect..not a convict.
Whilst this is happening, he is still innocent.
He is jailed as a suspect to prevent any escape from trial which can end up in a manhunt which could cost taxpayers millions.