Innocent Until Proven Guilty

[i noob killer i]

Meh I take the view that Everyone deserves a fair trial and that all the evidence should be looked at before a case Is sentenced .

 

[ChrisCol]

They only hold them in jail if they believe they have a strong enough case to convict them, meaning they are most likely guilty of the crime so they are being held there so that they don't leave the country and in some cases so that they are no longer a danger to others. In the case you are talking about 3 years sounds quite extensive and if the person is innocent i feel quite bad for them.

 

[awesome11]

Some people believe in people being innocent until proven guilty, and some people believe the opposite;
Guilty until proven innocent.

When it comes to me, I'm not quite so sure, cause you don't want the innocent being guilty; yet at the same time you dont want the guilty being innocent.

 

[pure skillzz]

How about instead of putting an alleged criminal in jail, putting an anklet on him/her?

And raise taxes along with this plan? You'll need to make lots of these anklets, you'll need more police officers/government employees. Not too mention the amount of people who will try and escape.

Meh I take the view that Everyone deserves a fair trial and that all the evidence should be looked at before a case Is sentenced .

This is a little off topic, but why do you always put a space before a period?

 

[RSBMFTW]

I read through the first few comments, and thought to myself "some of these people watch too much TV / movies" and then, read this post.

Watch the Movie Law Abiding Citizen and that will show you plenty of flaws in the justice system.

L O L. I guess movies and television shows are automatically considered accurate depictions of how it really works, huh?

Anyways, in order for someone to be "arrested", there has to be a considerable amount of evidence against them. If you notice, they don't arrest 6 people for a murder, then pick the best 1 out of those options. It's kind of like a jury before the jury. You have to know beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person you are arresting commited the crime, or had something to do with it (accomplice / knowledge of the crime). If you watch many documentarys on real non-fictional crimes / trials, you'll see alot of the times suspects will be arrested, interrogated, and held for a couple of days then released. Only to be arrested later on after more evidence was provided against them, and then they'll be held for months at a time.

Putting anklets on every person that gets arrested and is awaiting trial, and tracking them, would cost millions, if not billions. I'm sure that it is costing alot of money holding the inmates as well, but on top of the cost of tracking the accused, you run the risk of having them re-offend. Look at the percentage of parolees who re-offend. They know they're being watched closely, and do you think that stops them?

As for the whole "speedy trial" thing, you have to consider all the trials that go on. Then the time it takes to get a jury, and set everything up. The prosecution, defense, etc. etc. You can't really just wing it as you go in the trial, everything has to be carefully calculated and prepared.

That being said, 3 years is ENTIRELY too long, and I have no idea why they had to wait that long.

Also as a final note, (just thought of it), I think the media has ALOT to do with this. As with many things nowadays, the media is great at putting ideas into peoples minds. Most of the time they blow things out of proportion, and influence people into thinking how they want them to.

 

[Mi Mi]

I read through the first few comments, and thought to myself "some of these people watch too much TV / movies" and then, read this post.



L O L. I guess movies and television shows are automatically considered accurate depictions of how it really works, huh?

Uhh.. believe it or not, some films out there still uphold a little integrity- and tend to stray towards realism as opposed to fantasy. Don't associate the cinema in general with the token Michael bay flick. Im not in any way defending 'Law Abiding Citizen' as i haven't seen it but there is a great deal of knowledge to be attained through watching movies.

Watch the film 'In The Bedroom' , it portrays the whole innocent until proven guilty scenario with much impact.

Also as a final note, (just thought of it), I think the media has ALOT to do with this. As with many things nowadays, the media is great at putting ideas into peoples minds. Most of the time they blow things out of proportion, and influence people into thinking how they want them to.

Agreed, entirely. Take a gander at Fox News for example (now we're getting political)

 

[Kleenex]

Some people believe in people being innocent until proven guilty, and some people believe the opposite;
Guilty until proven innocent.

When it comes to me, I'm not quite so sure, cause you don't want the innocent being guilty; yet at the same time you dont want the guilty being innocent.

I agree, but I've no idea on how to solve this.

And raise taxes along with this plan? You'll need to make lots of these anklets, you'll need more police officers/government employees. Not too mention the amount of people who will try and escape.

I know it was a bad idea, but you have to agree that SOMETHING has to be done, right?

Anyways, in order for someone to be "arrested", there has to be a considerable amount of evidence against them. If you notice, they don't arrest 6 people for a murder, then pick the best 1 out of those options. It's kind of like a jury before the jury. You have to know beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person you are arresting commited the crime, or had something to do with it (accomplice / knowledge of the crime). If you watch many documentarys on real non-fictional crimes / trials, you'll see alot of the times suspects will be arrested, interrogated, and held for a couple of days then released. Only to be arrested later on after more evidence was provided against them, and then they'll be held for months at a time.

How is it fair to be held for months without being found guilty on anything?

Putting anklets on every person that gets arrested and is awaiting trial, and tracking them, would cost millions, if not billions. I'm sure that it is costing alot of money holding the inmates as well, but on top of the cost of tracking the accused, you run the risk of having them re-offend. Look at the percentage of parolees who re-offend. They know they're being watched closely, and do you think that stops them?

Yeah, like I said, not one of my best ideas.

As for the whole "speedy trial" thing, you have to consider all the trials that go on. Then the time it takes to get a jury, and set everything up. The prosecution, defense, etc. etc. You can't really just wing it as you go in the trial, everything has to be carefully calculated and prepared.

I'm not suggesting that anyone "wings it" when it comes to trials. Why not prepare some beforehand?

That being said, 3 years is ENTIRELY too long, and I have no idea why they had to wait that long.

I agree.

Also as a final note, (just thought of it), I think the media has ALOT to do with this. As with many things nowadays, the media is great at putting ideas into peoples minds. Most of the time they blow things out of proportion, and influence people into thinking how they want them to.

I agree. I think the media should really stay out of crimes. When someone gets arrested, the news jumps right on it, and they turn all the watchers against the accused. When Caylee Anthony died, the media covered the case, and now everybody thinks her mom, Casey, did it. There is damning evidence against her, and I didn't say she didn't do it, but I really hate it when the news and media get into things like this.

 

[Feren Silver]

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

That's what the bail system is used for. If I steal an iPod, I pay the $250 bail and am set free until my trial date.

The reason that people are actually denied bail is for numerous factors such as flight risks, serious offenders, repeat offenders, and so on.

So no, I don't think the system should be changed. It's not perfect, but it's better than letting everyone out under good faith.

 

[Kleenex]

That's what the bail system is used for. If I steal an iPod, I pay the $250 bail and am set free until my trial date.

The reason that people are actually denied bail is for numerous factors such as flight risks, serious offenders, repeat offenders, and so on.

So no, I don't think the system should be changed. It's not perfect, but it's better than letting everyone out under good faith.

But we're not talking about the bail system.

...right?

 

[breakin ankles]

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.

the truth

 

[Kleenex]

the truth

Oh, well thanks for spamming.

 

[Hawley]

You're guilty until proven innocent. There is no other way to word it.

 

It's a precautionary measure. And for the record, in most instances, you aren't sent to jail upon being arrested pending trial, but rather a facility of containment (similar to a jail, but not exactly a jail) until you are convicted.

If someone on Sythe does something suspicious - they are TWC'd as a precautionary and sometimes pend investigation, which leads to temporary/permanent bans. In real life, you are "TWC'D" by the police by getting arrested on suspect of committing a crime and pend trial for sentencing.