Reflections Upon the Ramifications of 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty'
Not that I have any problem with the concept, you understand. Perhaps it's just the wording? Yeah. The wording.
Innocent until proven guilty. That would work fine in a world where the guilty and only the guilty were caught and convicted. But in an actual world you run into two problems.
If you're innocent until proven guilty, it stands to reason that if you are never proven guilty, you are always innocent. Therefore, you have done nothing wrong.
Conclusion: It's only wrong if you get caught.
Furthermore, if you are proven guilty, you are no longer innocent, whether or not you actually did anything wrong.
But then, it's presumption of innocence until proven guilty, isn't it?
Ah, well...
Watch 'Legal Eagles'
Robert Redford sums it up perfectly.
Arthais101
10-10-2006, 00:59
The problem is you are mixing up the concept "innocent as a matter of fact" and "innocent as a matter of law".
One can be one without the other.
AllCoolNamesAreTaken
10-10-2006, 01:02
Anyone who thinks that 'innocent until proven guilty' is the way things actually are has never been arrested.
Anyone who thinks that 'innocent until proven guilty' is the way things actually are has never been arrested.
yep... because everyone knows that the real judge and jury are the media. the courts are only there for show.
Anyone who thinks that 'innocent until proven guilty' is the way things actually are has never been arrested.
QFT
Pledgeria
10-10-2006, 01:12
yep... because everyone knows that the real judge and jury are the media. the courts are only there for show.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but quoted for truth!
Mythotic Kelkia
10-10-2006, 01:23
Conclusion: It's only wrong if you get caught.
Furthermore, if you are proven guilty, you are no longer innocent, whether or not you actually did anything wrong.
just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.
The problem is you are mixing up the concept "innocent as a matter of fact" and "innocent as a matter of law".
One can be one without the other.
Indeed.
Not that I have any problem with the concept, you understand. Perhaps it's just the wording? Yeah. The wording.
Innocent until proven guilty. That would work fine in a world where the guilty and only the guilty were caught and convicted. But in an actual world you run into two problems.
If you're innocent until proven guilty, it stands to reason that if you are never proven guilty, you are always innocent. Therefore, you have done nothing wrong.
Conclusion: It's only wrong if you get caught.
Furthermore, if you are proven guilty, you are no longer innocent, whether or not you actually did anything wrong.
But then, it's presumption of innocence until proven guilty, isn't it?
Ah, well...
I think you're biggest problem is that you are forgetting the rest of the quote. It is: Innocent until proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".
That solves most of your problem right there.
King Arthur the Great
10-10-2006, 03:30
One phrase: OJ Simpson Trial.
Today, we live in the court of public opinion, the courtroom is CNN, our judge is Larry King, the prosecuter is Nancy Grace, and there is no defense attorney. :p
One phrase: OJ Simpson Trial.
Today, we live in the court of public opinion, the courtroom is CNN, our judge is Larry King, the prosecuter is Nancy Grace, and there is no defense attorney. :p
another... Jon Bonnet Ramsy (sp)
and another.. Micheal Jackson...
King Arthur the Great
10-10-2006, 03:36
another... Jon Bonnet Ramsy (sp)
and another.. Micheal Jackson...
Precisely!
Vittos the City Sacker
10-10-2006, 03:47
Anyone who thinks that 'innocent until proven guilty' is the way things actually are has never been arrested.
This is completely true.
Making matters worse is the issue of government indemnity.
I was wrongly arrested about 10 months ago. My truck was towed, I spent a night in jail, lost my license for a month and a half, separated from $900 for a month and a half.
The solicitor told me that the state had indemnity and thus was not liable for all of the shit they put me through. The judge upon tossing out the case while after I had waited for 4 hours to stand before him (subject to him, no less) was magnanimous enough to explain how the police sometimes gets the wrong information form the Department of Driver Services every-once-in-a while.
This is completely true.
Making matters worse is the issue of government indemnity.
I was wrongly arrested about 10 months ago. My truck was towed, I spent a night in jail, lost my license for a month and a half, separated from $900 for a month and a half.
The solicitor told me that the state had indemnity and thus was not liable for all of the shit they put me through. The judge upon tossing out the case while after I had waited for 4 hours to stand before him (subject to him, no less) was magnanimous enough to explain how the police sometimes gets the wrong information form the Department of Driver Services every-once-in-a while.
"Oops. Wrong guy..." :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:
7h053 c0p5 4r3 73h 5ux0r 4nd 7h3y n33d 70 p4y y0u b4ck f0r y0ur d4m4g35 7h47 7h3y c4u53d.
"Oops. Wrong guy..." :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:
7h053 c0p5 4r3 73h 5ux0r 4nd 7h3y n33d 70 p4y y0u b4ck f0r y0ur d4m4g35 7h47 7h3y c4u53d.
That's a bit too coherant for 1337speak.
Need to add some !!11!!43!!one!!!1five! at the end.
Anyone who thinks that 'innocent until proven guilty' is the way things actually are has never been arrested.
QFT