The cop who was caught on video knocking down a NYC bicyclist in July got indicted today. Does that mean he’s guilty?
Front page story of the NY Times today said there’s no case against the Illinois governor – that they’ve never been able to tell the difference between political deal making and criminality. Is he guilty?
New Americans think everyone is guilty not only BEFORE they are found guilty, but even if they are found NOT guilty. True patriots believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. Everyone else is an antidemocracy dictator
I guess that’s what a LOT of these posts are about – people believing (in GOD, global warming, guilt or innocence, etc) without sufficient evidence, and others who don’t like that kind of belief.
That is really annoying… yet people attack others for that reason, because they were accused of it and people believed they were guilty when they weren’t. There was something like that on the news a wile back but I can’t really remember it very well.
Is not the case that the accused are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Is that not why so much effort is made to find jurors who will be unbiased and, at least in theory, trials may be moved to other jurisdictions if it is determined that an unbiased jury can not be seated in the jurisdiction the alleged crime took place?
And does that not mean that outside a court of law we are free to think and say whatever we want without it being a reflection of our degree of patriotism?
Is “New American” synonymous with dipsh*t? I think that would be more accurate. Or Nancy Grace Fan (though she’s gotten better, but I still find her annoying to listen to). Smart people understand someone is not guilty until they are proven guilty. But that would make for boring news coverage, wouldn’t it?
In the case of violent crimes, in the US anyway, I think the accused can be held if the judge considers them too much of a risk to be out. Also if nobody posts bail for them. Sometimes they are wrong, and the presumed-innocent person commits more crimes wile waiting trial.
And finally it’s official! Fortunately there were no gloves in this latest case…
Just wanted to mention we went to all the countries after 9/11 without any one being guilty. So no, in this america it is not innocent until proven guilty. Our system is a horrible one. Not sure how long it will be until everyone notices this. Hopefully soon…
Is it true that in a court of law the jury selection process is about selection of an unbiased jury???
From having observed the process, it is my conviction that the jury selection process is a contest between lawyers in which the objective is to select a jury which is appropriatly biased in favor or against the defendant as the case may be.
The persuit of justice has nothing to do with it. At best the biases are matched and the process becomes a morality play with the winner taking all.
REMEMBER, PREGNANCY CAN RESULT FROM ANAL INTERCOURSE----WHERE DO YOU THINK ALL THE LAWYERS CAME FROM?
These are all trick questions, and I will prove it. Imagine this as a poll:
Is not the case that the accused are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? X Yes __ No
Is that not why so much effort is made to find jurors who will be unbiased and, at least in theory, trials may be moved to other jurisdictions if it is determined that an unbiased jury can not be seated in the jurisdiction the alleged crime took place? X Yes __ No
And does that not mean that outside a court of law we are free to think and say whatever we want without it being a reflection of our degree of patriotism? X Yes __ No
Let’s say someone gets arrested after eyewitness and video evidence positively shows this person murdering a convenience store clerk by shooting him to death.
Held on suspicion of first degree murder with no bail. Yes, the law says he’s “innocent” until proven guilty, but would you want this person released on his own recogniscence until his court date, on the chance that he would kill again and probably never show up to court.
There are good reasons for keeping violent offenders, drug traffickers and others locked up until their day in court to protect society from repeating their (alleged) crimes. I would also say it’s a safe bet that there are those who are incarcerated unjustly as well, but most are in for a valid reasons.
Most lawyers-even the court appointed ones-know enough about the law to get their clients out on bail, if warranted. The reverse has also been very true as well. MANY flat out guilty criminals-with $$$ have gotten out on bail when others with no money and lesser offenses have not. Like 5 years for possession of weed? Outrageous!
Even in the UK (I don’t know about the US), not everyone has the right to a trial by jury before they are locked up. People can be considered a danger to themselves and other people and be locked up indefinately and without charge without any trial whatsoever.
In fact, in these circumstances, whether they are guilty or innocent is irrelevant.
