• Log in or sign up for an account here: https://www.sythe.org/login

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Stel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually Police Officers reserve the right to hold you in jail for 24 hours.
 
Well, they don't need proof, but they need the D.A. to want to take on the case. And the D.A., who cares about their percentage of convictions, will only take on the case if there is A LOT of proof. So this is not really a failed system.
 
Stel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well said, Stel.

Schnell said:
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.
Click to expand...
Stel said that you need some sort of proof before they arrest you. Accoring to him, you can't arrest someone before you even investigate.
Jonjo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Then why not put an anklet tracking device on him/her? You should take away someone's freedom on an assumption.
 
If someone is actually proven innocent, don't they get some kind of money compensation?
 
if you are accused of certain crimes e.g. Manslaughter, you should be sent to Jail before you are issued a court session.
 
Kleenex, you've just been stating to "fix" this problem, but how can it be fixed?

How do suppose this should be fixed? What type of system do you think we should have?
 
Watch the Movie Law Abiding Citizen and that will show you plenty of flaws in the justice system.

This one however I have to say though is somewhat a flaw that I agree with. If a man is waiting trial for murder, then I do not just want that person walking around acting like a normal citizen knowing he killed someone.

It may say in the constitution that you are "innocent until proven guilty" but in today's society and even before today's day and age it is never really like that. You walk into a court room and everyone in their already thinks you are guilty and you haven't even said one word. It is up to your Lawyer to change the juries or the judges mind that you are innocent, but unless they succeed at doing so, you are going to be treated as a guilty suspect.

Awaiting a Trial Should take 6 Months at the MAXIMUM.
 
The general idea of innocence until proven guilty comes in two parts. Under the law you are always innocent until proven guilty, you may not be treated as being innocent but you cannot serve punishment from being accused. In the peoples eyes however innocent until proven guilty is rarely looked upon. If you are suspected of being a killer, in my opinion you should be treated like you are a killer until you have substantial proof that you are not a killer. If some others lives are at stake guiltiness should always be looked at first before innocence. It is hard to think of some one being innocent after they have been accused of murdering.
 
Stel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh but they can hold you for questioning and/or a period of time which allows them time to workout any bugs.. Also, holding someone could be as much for their protection as the general public. Best of luck with your future goals.. I always run into you rich guys when on vacation.
 
pure skillzz said:
Kleenex, you've just been stating to "fix" this problem, but how can it be fixed?

How do suppose this should be fixed? What type of system do you think we should have?
Click to expand...
How about instead of putting an alleged criminal in jail, putting an anklet on him/her?
Appeal To Reason said:
Well if you killed someone for example and were to have a court case in a month, you go to prision to not danger society because they are letting a suspect and or dangerous person roaming around.
Click to expand...
What if I didn't kill anyone?

The Phat Big Kid said:
Watch the Movie Law Abiding Citizen and that will show you plenty of flaws in the justice system.

This one however I have to say though is somewhat a flaw that I agree with. If a man is waiting trial for murder, then I do not just want that person walking around acting like a normal citizen knowing he killed someone.

It may say in the constitution that you are "innocent until proven guilty" but in today's society and even before today's day and age it is never really like that. You walk into a court room and everyone in their already thinks you are guilty and you haven't even said one word. It is up to your Lawyer to change the juries or the judges mind that you are innocent, but unless they succeed at doing so, you are going to be treated as a guilty suspect.

Awaiting a Trial Should take 6 Months at the MAXIMUM.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked, many Supreme Court cases are based off the Constitution. The only time we should ever ignore something stated in the Constitution is when there is an Amendment ruling the law out.
gregislacrosse said:
The general idea of innocence until proven guilty comes in two parts. Under the law you are always innocent until proven guilty, you may not be treated as being innocent but you cannot serve punishment from being accused. In the peoples eyes however innocent until proven guilty is rarely looked upon. If you are suspected of being a killer, in my opinion you should be treated like you are a killer until you have substantial proof that you are not a killer. If some others lives are at stake guiltiness should always be looked at first before innocence. It is hard to think of some one being innocent after they have been accused of murdering.
Click to expand...
So I could accuse you of murdering someone, gather a bit of unsubstantial evidence, and get you imprisoned for years until you're found not guilty? That's not an ideal couple of years for me.
 
Kleenex said:
So I could accuse you of murdering someone, gather a bit of unsubstantial evidence, and get you imprisoned for years until you're found not guilty? That's not an ideal couple of years for me.
Click to expand...


I said you should be looked upon as guilty, until you gather substantial evidence that you are not guilty. If there is unsubstantial evidence provided by the prosecutor, I should be treated guilty do to the fact it is unsubstantial and should easily be overturned. However, in the state of obvious and substantial evidence provided by the prosecutor, one should be treated as guilty, unless substantial evidence is put forth to defend himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Runescape Gamblingrunescape gambling
Back
Top