Do you think that "innocent until proven guilty" is outdated for this day and age?
we don't have witch hunts anymore and burning at the stake...should we put the burden of proof on the accused instead...
Answers:
This is still America and our constitution still gives that right to everyone. Theoretically, its a good rule of law.
More people are getting crimes on camera.
The Media and the General Pulic already does!!
Thank God we have a Judicial system that puts the burdon on the accuser, not the accused.
You are putting a dangerous amount of power in the DA's ofice otherwise...
Yeah, I think "Guilty as deemed by the public" would be a more appropriate term in this day and age.
I think that is what separates the US from the terrorist and the fascist dictators that we claim to oppose.
Innocent until proven guilty means the burden is on the govt to take away someone's right to be free and to live their life.
Guilty until proven innocent means the govt can lock you up forever, until you convince them that you are not a threat.
Saying it's obsolete means you think that the only people who should have any freedom are the ones that never have any enemies.. good luck with that model.
Yes
sometimes it is obvious that someone is guilty, sometimes it isn't. i think that the legal system as it is, is fine in theory. it's when you plug people in that problems occur. i don't have pity on any criminal, but in this country due process is okay with me.
Definitely not! It is a key element in the concepts of freedom and security, and we cannot allow the burden of proof to fall onto the shoulders of the accused, otherwise we will descend into a fascist state. Do some reading about that, and you will understand why this is such an important factor in our society.
No, I think "innocent until proven guilty" is more important than ever.
Now victims groups will argue otherwise, but then they have a need to be "victims".
I think "innocent until proven guilty" is often said and Rarely practiced. Like police finding the hemp seeds you feed your birds, accusing you of growing marijuana, and throwing you in jail until they can annalyze it. Or how about the thousands of middle easterners who "Look" like terrorists and are yanked out of the airport and held captive until police question them?
No matter what they say, you are always considered guilty until proven innocent. but it shouldn't be that way.
"Innocent until proven guilty" will never be outdated; it is a true humane concept. The trouble is, today most people just don't get it! From almost every corner peoples' manner towards the accused is "Guilty; prove to me that you didn't do it!" The slightest finger pointed at you will bring out the rage in people. Very few people seem to understand the concept of "burden of proof" at all. I think we are getting very close to the witchhunt stage.
Oh absolutely! Lets just throw everybody in jail. After all, if you're innocent, you should have no problem proving it, right?
Seriously, the burden of proof is on the courts because it's nearly impossible to prove a negative. In other words, it's far easier to prove whether somebody DID do something wrong than it is to prove that he DIDN'T do something wrong. The Founding Fathers lived during the Enlightenment era and as such were well versed in the field of logic, so they knew what they were talking about.
.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: