Innocent until proven guilty? Really?
By 
Introduction
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ..."
It doesn't say that a person can't be assumed guilty by citizens prior to a trial.
Legal vs. Societal
Is there a difference between the incontrovertible fact that an accused must be considered not guilty until the State proves guilt and society which has to live with the accused while guilt is being determined?
Common Sense
While Innocent Until Proven Guilty is the cornerstone of the legal system in this country, and it's part of what makes America great, it really is only that -- applicable to the legal system.
You wouldn't let an accused child molester babysit your little girl; therefore you have predetermined guilt.
You wouldn't let an accused child molester babysit your little girl; therefore you have predetermined guilt.
News Media
Preponderance of evidence. Often the media can sway public opinion without having all of the evidence at it's disposal.
Richard Jewell was reported to be a potential suspect in the Centennial Park bombing. He was later exonerated, but his life was ruined. Within the media and those that follow it, Jewell's case became a well known example of the damage that can be done through reporting based on unreliable or incomplete information.
Richard Jewell was reported to be a potential suspect in the Centennial Park bombing. He was later exonerated, but his life was ruined. Within the media and those that follow it, Jewell's case became a well known example of the damage that can be done through reporting based on unreliable or incomplete information.
Recent case
Many of Michael Vick's fans loudly decried his innocence and questioned the concept of innocent until proven guilty prior to the court proceeding. Would you have let him care for your dogs?
Common sense is the cornerstone of the legal system in this country? Are you sure? :)
No, Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone. Common sense is often lacking.
I don't get it. First, the legal system in the US is based on a hell of a lot more than the Constitution; it also doesn't say anything about going 65 in a 35 mph zone. So I guess that's okay?
List items 1, 2, and 4 seem to suggest it's okay to prejudge someone; item 3 is an example of what can happen when you do.
How about, "Judge not, that ye be not judged."
List items 1, 2, and 4 seem to suggest it's okay to prejudge someone; item 3 is an example of what can happen when you do.
How about, "Judge not, that ye be not judged."
Yes, the legal system is based on more than that, however the presumption of innocence is a basic principal of our penal trial system, and most others.
My name is Pam and I am a sinner. Therefore I am not perfect.
I believe as humans we judge every day. All kinds of things: that clerk was dumb, that driver is nuts, that parent is mean, and so forth. No, it is really not okay. However, as you have previously pointed out, we are also to protect and care for the "least of these". In my mind that would include not sending my 5 year old down to spend time with the teacher who has been indicted for molesting little girls. I would not have had Jeffrey Dahmer be my college son's roommate.
Item 3 is an example of what the MEDIA can do.
Matthew 7:1-6 is a very valid point. I think, in society, as a person, we should be much more careful about pointing fingers; it is hypocritical, to judge people for what you, yourself have done.
My point was that the mob cry of "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principal, not necessarily something that should be tested on a societal basis.
I do not have your IQ, or a child who is a lawyer. I am not able to debate this on your intellecutal level. I just was surprised by the totally disparate reaction of people to the Michael Vick story: Several people on this site were being derisive after some of the evidence came out compared to many fans who were claiming he was "Innocent" because he hadn't been proven guilty. I'm certain that many of you would not have let him care for your animals.
Based on that, I put forth the ideas in the list as my opinions.
My name is Pam and I am a sinner. Therefore I am not perfect.
I believe as humans we judge every day. All kinds of things: that clerk was dumb, that driver is nuts, that parent is mean, and so forth. No, it is really not okay. However, as you have previously pointed out, we are also to protect and care for the "least of these". In my mind that would include not sending my 5 year old down to spend time with the teacher who has been indicted for molesting little girls. I would not have had Jeffrey Dahmer be my college son's roommate.
Item 3 is an example of what the MEDIA can do.
Matthew 7:1-6 is a very valid point. I think, in society, as a person, we should be much more careful about pointing fingers; it is hypocritical, to judge people for what you, yourself have done.
My point was that the mob cry of "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principal, not necessarily something that should be tested on a societal basis.
I do not have your IQ, or a child who is a lawyer. I am not able to debate this on your intellecutal level. I just was surprised by the totally disparate reaction of people to the Michael Vick story: Several people on this site were being derisive after some of the evidence came out compared to many fans who were claiming he was "Innocent" because he hadn't been proven guilty. I'm certain that many of you would not have let him care for your animals.
Based on that, I put forth the ideas in the list as my opinions.
By 
By 
By 
By 
By 
By 
By 
By 
By
4 Comments