(Don't worry, I won't use it against you...)
Shade of Blue
Although there was that episode of Star Trek in Q's court where the used the rule "guilty until proven innocent" on the justification that there if a man were innocent, he would not be on trial.
And that was quite amusing, I must say.
But yeah, for our present society, I'd say "innocent until proven guilty."
Did you listen to "The Green Mile"? I strongly believe someone is innocent until prooved and disaproove the death pain in US because I'm pretty sure someone will suffer more being in jail with his conscience then dying just after... this is horrible, look:
Exemple: Mister X kills a woman
Police catches Mister Z that didn't do a single thing.
They receive the execution order...
they kill Mister Z...
Two months after Mister X is found as the real murderer.
Those things of the society are pretty terrible, would you kill an innocent?
Resounding "yes" from me.
Too many people's lives have been ruined by accusatory jornalism.
Only when it suits me.
Yes, I definately think someone should be assumed innocent until proven guilty. I agree with everything XSTG said. As XSTG said, it can be a huge problem if an innocent person is punished for something they didn't do. Furthermore, on the other side, someone may argue that some guilty person might be getting away because it cannot be proven. But if it cannot be proven, there is no way to know for sure that the person actually committed the crime, therefore they should not be punished until it is proven, in order to ensure that some innocent person is not punished.
I'm the only one to say no, lol.
I don't believe in innocent until proven guilty OR guilty until proven innocent, basically because i think that making any assumption like that influences how the ruling goes and makes it an unfair trial. I believe that people need to listen to everything with an open mind when it comes to putting someone in prison (or sentencing them to death).
As dorky as it may sound, I try to apply the scientific method to everything that I do (I'm a Physics / Engineering major, BTW). In the case of the legal system, the policy of innocent until proven guilty is completely in line with that. We (society) have to challenge our own assumptions (that suspect X is guilty) until we can be absolutly sure of it. We as humans are far too suspectable to bias to let any important decision happen without vigorous review.
As much as I would love to believe "innocent until proven guilty", "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really exsist in the the U.S. judicial system. The mass media doesn't help the cause at all and tends to portray the person on trial as "guilty" until proven innocent.
I can see the point about Mr X and Z, but innocnet until proven guilty should be used, but executions shouldnt happen i dont think. Or at least, the laws should be tightened up, to stop things like that happening.
there are most 'guilty' people roaming the streets than innocens in jail. wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry?
no the old system worked oh so much better, bring back debters prison
It won't take long before innocents will never end up in prison anyways. Currently applications with MRI are being created to use as a form of lie detection, still in the testing phase, but already at an accuracy rate of over 99%. You might be able to fool current lie detection tests since those are things which you can control, you cannot control the areas of the brains which are used whilst telling something which is a memory though or when you are making something up.
So well yeh, unless you would go scrape parts out of your own brain some way this would prevent a lot of innocent people ending up in prison.
Always innocent until proven guilty. Thats the way it stands under the judical term of crime - a crime,trial&sentence. Under the criminological term of crime - a crime or any antisocial act. Thats all that is needed to be guilty. So depending on your mimdset, you will choose to condemn a person guilty or not. NJOY 2006!
It depends on the man or woman accused.
Definately, at the moment here where I live a supposed terrorist has been arrested several times but yet again every time he didn't get sent to prison since his attempts weren't succesful enough. He did though have his own bombs, created a suicide video message for his family, etc. Although according to the law the person is innocent I definately wouldn't allow him to walk freely on the streets, but that's what's happening though.
On some points the current ideal of "innocent" just isn't right.
No i would rather go on with the knowledge that if i am innocent i cant end up in prison. Your idea may sound nice but put urself into a position of an innocent person that is in jail for NOTHING. I am sure u will change ur mind.
Everybody keeps going on about all the innocent people in prison.
Personally, I figure this is a very small minority. 90% of inmates would say that they are innocent, but very few are.
If you want justice, then die.
Then you will be before the judge that does not make mistakes.
That's funny shit right there, don't matter who you are!
Apparantly 3% of the executed people were proven innocent after their death in the USA. The real number is most likely 5% innocent people. That means that you murder 5 innocent people per 100 executions. It's not something I would like to do and it can easily be avoided.
What would you do if you were convicted and murdered innocently? The judge that doesn't make any mistakes won't send you back.
Not so long ago there was a news story about a convicted couple. The man got death penalty, his wife got prison for life. A few years after the man got executed, the real murdered confessed. The woman was only released after having to sign a contract stating that she won't sue them.
Exactly what I mean!
They come up with very small numbers (5%), and isolated instances. Then they flout them all over the place.
Personally I'm okay with 5%, it could be a lot worse.
5% is a small number? I would refer to 5% as hell of a large number. :/
I was talking about executed people, not about all prisoners, that number is much higher for sure(it should be).
So in order to kill murderers (which are in prison and aren't able to harm anymore) you sacrifice 5% innocent people? Murdering them yourself while they know that they are innocent and that their innocence might be proven a few years later? Just because the real murderers have to die faster?
Let's say 95 terrorists kidnap your family (5 people). They are surrounded by the army and will release the hostages in exchange for the promess to get to prison instead of being killed. You can either bomb them (all dead including your family) or accept their trade. What would you do?
Accept their deal, and once they are in custody, they get the chair.
Justification: we don't negotiate with terrorists, but we can trick them.
But, so as to not escape by a technicality, I would say yes, bomb the building.
Yes! I really do believe in that
I think it is a terrible thing for someone to be punished when
they really and truly dont deserve it say they have a family and there a really good person they dind't do anything and there in jail when they did nothing to even deserve it I think that is just plain wrong any way you can look at it thats just my two cents though
Yes. Abolish all laws. Let's look at some countries where nearly all things considered immoral are socially acceptable. Then let's look at the stunningly high suicide rate... and wonder why