The Presumption of Innocence

[JohnBrown1917]

Read the quote?

That's from the quote from the article the OP gave. It says right there, that they're not referring to our legal system. But hey, whatever stirs up the "fuck feminists" crowd.

And how does that make it any less disgusting?

[Shocktroop]

This was written by a lawyer? What the fuck is wrong with your educational system?

Lawyers are scum of the earth, it has nothing to do with the educational system.

[Korgoth]

Hey look another progressive feminist preaching that the word of a woman should be considered truth unless disproved, but that the word of a man should be considered false until proven.

The presumption of innocence, the right to face one's accuser, are the basis of a just society. Anyone arguing otherwise needs to get smacked in the face with a history book.

Luckily the Republicans won and male hating bigots like this wont have the power to legislate their sexist agenda. Be it making a Woman's word the law, or making your pay based on whether your coworker has a vagina.

[Invictus9001]

Absolutely untrue.
In fact, in no society that lasts for long has this ever been true.

The USA has been operating on this premise for quite some time, and seems definitely able to continue down the path I described. You may disagree, if you so choose; but it doesn't change the fact that the situation exists and is pervasive. Special treatment of athletes and other celebrities happens all the time, in cases where a common person (man or woman) in the same circumstances would have utterly had the proverbial book thrown at him/her.

[Ghostpanther]

Sometimes all one has to do is consider the source....Washington Post. :P It is a very stupid statement. Any person who is accused of a crime has to be presumed innocent until evidence proves otherwise.

[Deleted]

Crimes should not be media news worthy , they should be made open to the public sure . but nowadays you are trialed not only in a court of law but also the court of public opinion. Press need to stop making decisions based on their opinions and shove it down peoples throats. Rape is the worst case in this , look at how they will go after the accused calling them guilty without proof most of the time, especially liberal media.

The police and courts have a duty to everyone involved to investigate all potential leads , even if it means treating the victim as a suspect , because false accusations have been known to happen. The law isn't there to cuddle you. its there to at least attempt to get the right verdict

[Deleted]

Sometimes all one has to do is consider the source....Washington Post. :P It is a very stupid statement. Any person who is accused of a crime has to be presumed innocent until evidence proves otherwise.

That's not really how it works. When you report a crime they don't know whether it happened or not. They can't just assume that the other person is innocent when a crime is reported or they wouldn't even be investigating in the first place. The default when a crime is reported is "We don't know, let's launch an investigation and find out".

[madmanx]

That's not really how it works. When you report a crime they don't know whether it happened or not. They can't just assume that the other person is innocent when a crime is reported or they wouldn't even be investigating in the first place. The default when a crime is reported is "We don't know, let's launch an investigation and find out".

Wow..where the hell did you go to school....

[Deleted]

Wow..where the hell did you go to school....

So, if you report a crime they shouldn't launch an investigation? I mean, why would you start an investigation on someone innocent? You can't have them assume innocence instantly because then no crimes would be investigated.

[Raphtheone]

So, if you report a crime they shouldn't launch an investigation? I mean, why would you start an investigation on someone innocent? You can't have them assume innocence instantly because then no crimes would be investigated.

Considering the alternative, I think he's asking so he knows where to send his current/future children.

[tehealadin]

The problem is that she's advocating that in a special circumstance - rape accusation - where the victim is a particular gender - female - that society should treat the accused as guilty until they're proven innocent. It's a terribly sexist opinion with horrifying implications, and the justification is laughable:

"Sure, a falsely accused man may lose his job, family, friends, all the positive prospects in life, but if we don't do it then a woman may suffer through not being taken seriously enough until her claims are proven in court."

Holy f**k - cause those two inconveniences are exactly the same, right? It's appalling this was allowed to be published, but what's probably worse is that if you disagree with her opinion, supporters will label you as "hating women" and use the fervour to breed more of the same, pushing such radicalism further into the mainstream.

This is my gripe with the whole thing.

Don't get me wrong- the way rape victims are treated by the legal system is often atrocious. I had a friend who was raped. She was 17. She was made, in court, to hold up the underwear she wore on the night and told she must have wanted it. The scumbag got convicted (due to the level of violence involved, he had no chance). even so, the damage was done and she eventually killed herself. It makes me sick. It makes me so angry. I have no doubt that if the court had treated her with the sympathy and sensitivity she deserved, she would still be alive.

Abandoning the presumption of innocence is not how you do this. Judges shutting down the cunt notion that wearing a g string means you are asking for it, and stomping down on dick lawyers trying to victim blame, these would go a long way to improving things.

That being said, there is only so much you can do. At the end of the way, unless a level of violence was used/there were witnesses, it often boils down to one persons word against another's. This is an incredibly difficult situation. In a court, the truth does not matter, only what you can prove. And when it boils down to "she said/he said", you don't have a mountain of clear evidence to base a decision off of. You risk either allowing a guilty person walk free and a victim is destroyed, or imprisoning an innocent person. Both outcomes have terrible consequences. And you cannot get it right each time. The presumption of innocence, as far as I can tell, is based on the premise that it is better to let a guilty person walk free than to imprison an innocent. This can be cold comfort to victims who have seen their attackers walk free.

If I was accused of a crime, I would want a fair trial. Without the presumption of innocence, there can be no such thing. Whilst the courts can, and will, get it wrong- the opportunity for a fair trial at least exists. Removing this protection removes the chance of a fair trial. This is a serious matter. And this notion that in cases of rape, this premise should be abolished is....worrying. It isn't motivated out of a desire for justice. It isn't just because rape is so difficult to prove. It is because the majority of the victims are female. And it is being promoted by extremists bigots (call them what you like, feminists, progressives or whatever, at the end of the day they are extremist bigots) who wish to elevate the status of one gender (if a dude gets raped, do you think they will still want the presumption to be abolished? Equality feminists will, sure, but the extremists who so often drive these agendas? No chance) whilst reducing the status of the gender they hate (and this is motivated by hate of men as much as it is anything else), who so often hijack real and serious issues (like domestic violence/women in gaming/economic inequality) and seek to implant something grotesque as the solution, a solution that is no solution at all, and is more of a punishment born out of hate (and you don't even need to have done anything to be deserving of this punishment, you just need to be born the wrong way).

I am always worried when extremists have their views taken seriously. It seems to be a growing trend, where this particular brand of extremist, isn't called one, or treated as one (by mainstream sources at least) and has this shield where they can deflect any and all rational critique of their views by throwing out accusations of all sorts of isms, resorting to bully tactics etc to silence criticism. Went off on a little tangent/rant there, but my point remains, this is just one example of a larger problem that really does concern me.

[Nadiru]

Read the quote?

That's from the quote from the article the OP gave. It says right there, that they're not referring to our legal system. But hey, whatever stirs up the "fuck feminists" crowd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_public_opinion

Let's opine that things we do outside of the court system can have an effect on the court system.

[madmanx]

So, if you report a crime they shouldn't launch an investigation? I mean, why would you start an investigation on someone innocent? You can't have them assume innocence instantly because then no crimes would be investigated.

If you had payed attention in school you would know that "The presumption of innocence" doesn't really have anything to do with police work. It is a legal idea and roughly the same thing as Roman Law. It refers to who has the burden of proof in a court of law.

[Deleted]

If you had payed attention in school you would know that "The presumption of innocence" doesn't really have anything to do with police work. It is a legal idea and roughly the same thing as Roman Law. It refers to who has the burden of proof in a court of law.

The quote I quoted read as this

"Any person who is accused of a crime has to be presumed innocent until evidence proves otherwise."

When you initially accuse someone, that's the report. I know what the courts are like, I'm just turning against that specific part of it, because the initial accusation is the report. Not someone accused who has gone to court.

[Nadiru]

The quote I quoted read as this

"Any person who is accused of a crime has to be presumed innocent until evidence proves otherwise."

When you initially accuse someone, that's the report. I know what the courts are like, I'm just turning against that specific part of it, because the initial accusation is the report. Not someone accused who has gone to court.

They have to be presumed innocent because a presumption of guilt is like proving a negative.

[Deleted]

They have to be presumed innocent because a presumption of guilt is like proving a negative.

OR how about this? "We don't know what happened, we'll launch an investigation to see if we can find out"? When you report a crime there is no guilt or innocence, it's an investigation which, if they find enough to bring it to court, will have to be tried for guilt or not when done.

[Nadiru]

OR how about this? "We don't know what happened, we'll launch an investigation to see if we can find out"? When you report a crime there is no guilt or innocence, it's an investigation which, if they find enough to bring it to court, will have to be tried for guilt or not when done.

That is innocence before guilt procedure. So you're agreeing with me and that other poster, you just don't know what words mean, I guess.

[Deleted]

That is innocence before guilt procedure. So you're agreeing with me and that other poster, you just don't know what words mean, I guess.

No, it's not. It's neither innocence nor guilt. You wouldn't investigate someone innocent.

[Nadiru]

No, it's not. It's neither innocence or guilt.

The idea of investigation on the behalf of both parties is necessarily an admission that both parties could be innocent.

[Daerio]

It's neither innocence nor guilt. You wouldn't investigate someone innocent.

This is 100% a perceptual issue on your part, and you should really do some open-minded reading on what the presumption of innocence actually means in our shared language, and not just what you seem to think it means.