The question of whether a person should, legally, be considered “Innocent until Proven Guilty” is one which permeates all of law throughout the world. In the U.S., this question has nearly always been answered in the affirmative, with this principle constantly reaffirmed as the “Cornerstone of American Justice.”
There have been cases, however, in which a mere credible accusation has been sufficient to incur the worst punishment for the accused unless he could prove himself innocent. There is even statute, in certain areas of law, providing that such proof (of innocence) be provided in order for the accused to be relieved of any punishment.
Some great thinkers of history believed that anyone must ALWAYS be considered innocent until they are proven guilty, including such personages as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, while the opposite view was held by others such as Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot.
I personally subscribe to the view holding parties innocent until proven guilty. This is because, in my opinion, PUNISHING AN INNOCENT MAN IS FAR WORSE THAN RELEASING A GUILTY ONE! In the view of those taking the opposite position it is, no doubt, FAR W0RSE TO ALLOW A GUILTY PARTY TO ESCAPE UNPUNISHED THAN TO PUNISH AN INNOCENT ONE!
The question of whether a person should, legally, be considered “Innocent until Proven Guilty” is one which permeates all of law throughout the world. In the U.S., this question has nearly always been answered in the affirmative, with this principle constantly reaffirmed as the “Cornerstone of American Justice.”
There have been cases, however, in which a mere credible accusation has been sufficient to incur the worst punishment for the accused unless he could prove himself innocent. There is even statute, in certain areas of law, providing that such proof (of innocence) be provided in order for the accused to be relieved of any punishment.
Some great thinkers of history believed that anyone must ALWAYS be considered innocent until they are proven guilty, including such personages as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, while the opposite view was held by others such as Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot.
I personally subscribe to the view holding parties innocent until proven guilty. This is because, in my opinion, PUNISHING AN INNOCENT MAN IS FAR WORSE THAN RELEASING A GUILTY ONE! In the view of those taking the opposite position it is, no doubt, FAR W0RSE TO ALLOW A GUILTY PARTY TO ESCAPE UNPUNISHED THAN TO PUNISH AN INNOCENT ONE!
What do YOU think?
I agree with you. I think there needs to be ample proof of a crime before a person is convicted.
And yes - much worse to prosecute an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free.
I'm on the same page as you, and in fact take your stance to the next level, It is much worse to incarcerate one innocent person that let ALL the guilty go free... in practicality though, there is a level of balance moderation required which is why we have appeal measures built into our justice system. It is also why I am vehemently against capital punishment.
I watched a show on 20/20 or Primetime about a month ago about this man who was thrown in prison , what about killed me is this... they allowed 2 drug addicted loosers to identify him...and the killer himself (lied). ONe was even being pushed to pick a face out of book, then this man got called for a line up. Now this man was innocent, he spent the last 15 or more yrs (I forget ) behind bars, missing every moment of his 2 sons lives. He did NOT have a prior record, he was a good man.
I tend to judge people on thier histories... if you have hijacked cars, been arrested for countless drug crimes, sorry I think you are a complete & utter A HOLE and if you land in court, I annoys the crap out of me how all of this gets thrown out ... I suppose since one won't be convicted unfairly ??
I am accually for Capital Punishment in a big way.. but I do agree with you... it is WORSE to be an INNOCENT man put behind bars , the injustice of this makes me want to scream !! Near nothing is worse in life.
I don't know what the answer to the dilimma is though. There are many bad people in this society that need taken out of it... many things are just not working, not enough social programs for it. I feel those who are pointing the fingers as witnesses should be called into question. If shaky character, this should be taken into account.
If they would have taken the histories into account with many of those they feel are guilty (like that man I mentioned above)... it would have been obvious he was innocent, something completley out of his character, plus they had zero proof at all !! WTF. Never should anothers life hang in the balance on a couple of drug addicted witnesses -picking your face out of a line up. Unbelievable.
I too believe one is innocent until proven guilty... But with too many people serving their egos and pushing careers, especially in politics... They'll take one guy and say that's him and do everything possible to prove it, even when it's not...
S.A,
Here's a story from Investigate Discovery....
A guy spent 20 years in prison accused of rape against a woman only to eventually have DNA clear him....
Was released, filed a lawsuit but ended up right back in prison for murder....
I too believe one is innocent until proven guilty... But with too many people serving their egos and pushing careers, especially in politics... They'll take one guy and say that's him and do everything possible to prove it, even when it's not...
THat is what happened with that man I was talking about, it was a COP who was shot, he was retired ... but it seems that old cop was a bad guy himself, hanginig out with these drug addicts. Since he was a cop, they were pushing for a conviction, that man got caught in the cross fire. I wish I could remember his name, he was wrting to the show for yrs, finally some lawyers looked into his case, but still... he is having a hell of a time getting it overturned, I have no faith in the system for allowing such laws to not fall to the ground --when this type of evidence comes forth.
It is just all wrong, nobody cares. I hate it --HATE IT !
Quote:
S.A,
Here's a story from Investigate Discovery....
A guy spent 20 years in prison accused of rape against a woman only to eventually have DNA clear him....
Was released, filed a lawsuit but ended up right back in prison for murder....
I don't understand that , it was a rape /murder, released due to DNA excluding him.... then back to prison. THat sounds crazy to me ! DNA is a beautiful thing. So why was that overturned.
I read Patricia Cornwell's book on Jack the Ripper... some DNA findings in that....that was terribly interesting. I was near convinced she cracked the case...but it never will be.
I don't understand that , it was a rape /murder, released due to DNA excluding him.... then back to prison. THat sounds crazy to me ! DNA is a beautiful thing. So why was that overturned.
I read Patricia Cornwell's book on Jack the Ripper... some DNA findings in that....that was terribly interesting. I was near convinced she cracked the case...but it never will be.
Sorry...
He murdered another woman after he was cleared... But he did not rape the woman he had initially went to prison for...
Re: That Girl "I think Guilty until proven innocent!"
Has it occured to you that one can be truly innocent of an accusation but unable to prove it? What if you had been quietly reading a book in your house when you heard some commotion happening outside, and ran outside to see what it was all about?
What if arrriving at the street level you discovered a murdered man with a knife laying near him and, instinctivelly, picked it up in case the slayer was still nearby and you may need to defend yourself? What if a policeman suddenly arrived to arrest you for murder?
You were holding the murder weapon, you had been identified as being the first person seen near the body by two eyewitnesses, and having been accused by "Guilty until Proven Innocent" Law you would now be required to find an alibi to acqit yourself, but none exists! You would be on your way to the death house (or at least lifetime incarcertion)!
If guilty until proven innocent there would be no need for police to investigate crimes. They could just pick anyone, charge them. Now it's up to the charged person to prove that they are innocent.
It is very hard to prove that you did not do something.
4Likes
Innocent until Proven Guilty? 
