Must we view people as innocent until proven guilty?

[Coral Rhedd]

In the U.S. and many developed nations, people who are accused of crimes are viewed as innocent until proven guilty. I contend that while this is good courtroom procedure to assure that the innocent are not wrongly convicted, the general public has no such moral obligation.

 

The power to judge and censure is an important social control. We should use it more often when outrageous behavior shreds the fabric of our communities.

[Pangloss]

What is the value of having the public judge/condemn?

 

Oh I see, you're talking about non-criminal judgement in general? Like for example "judging" that Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing conservative?

[Hellbender]

The power to judge and censure is an important social control. We should use it more often when outrageous behavior shreds the fabric of our communities.

 

And I couldn't agree more, just don't let it get out of hand.

[Flareon]

In the U.S. and many developed nations' date=' people who are accused of crimes are viewed as innocent until proven guilty. I contend that while this is good courtroom procedure to assure that the innocent are not wrongly convicted, the general public has no such moral obligation.

 

The power to judge and censure is an important social control. We should use it more often when outrageous behavior shreds the fabric of our communities.[/quote']

 

Coral, may I suggest that we should separate the topic of crime from "outrageous behavior," as they require different approaches.

[Coral Rhedd]

What is the value of having the public judge/condemn?

 

Oh I see' date=' you're talking about non-criminal judgement in general? Like for example "judging" that Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing conservative?[/quote']

 

I don't see anything wrong with giving ourselves permission to make such judgements even in instances where people have been accused of a crime. As long as we aren't sitting on the jury or organizing a lynch mob, I think such judgments serve the purpose of reinforcing our values. For instance, if I said that Limbaugh should have served a prison term for acquiring illegal prescriptions of oxycontin or if I decided I thought the evidence showed he was guilty before he confessed, I think I would actually be doing my job as a thinking person and exercising my freedom of speech.

 

If you disagreed, thought what he did was not so very bad, or decided the evidence showed him to be innocent, you too would be doing your job as a thinking person and exercising your freedom of speech.

 

I think it is just as valid to say one believes someone is guilty as it is to say someone is innocent.

 

Yet people have gotten very squeamish. The press is careful because they don't want to be sued, but as a private citizen, if I feel outrage about something, if I feel someone's appearance, behavior, or the available evidence indicates guilt, then I should be able to make that call.

[Tetrahedrite]

In the U.S. and many developed nations, people who are accused of crimes are viewed as innocent until proven guilty.

I think events of the recent past have showed that this is not necessarily the case....

[Coral Rhedd]

I think events of the recent past have showed that this is not necessarily the case....

 

Since your signature actually gives me permission to ask stupid questions, is there a particular nation or circumstance you are referring to?

[Coral Rhedd]

Coral, may I suggest that we should separate the topic of crime from "outrageous behavior," as they require different approaches.

 

Good point. However, speeding tickets are often given but the act of speeding does not rise to the level of outrageous.

 

How about focusing on crime that is serious?

[Flareon]

I do agree with you and believe that our right to voice our opinion is a priceless freedom we enjoy in this country and those who wish to exercise it, should.

 

However, on a personal note, if I was ever wrongly-accused of a heinous crime (and this of thing does happen more often than one would think), I would want the general public to at least give me some benefit of doubt and not stamp me as guilty even before my trial was over. I'm not a saint, and I don't think people will look at me and automatically think, 'aww, what a sweet-looking person, she's probably innocent,' so restraint of such prejudgment would be important to me. Even though I would recognize that it is everyone's right to place whatever kind of personal verdict on me, I would be very demoralized if people thought I was a criminal based on their assumptions without undoubtable proof.

[Tetrahedrite]

Since your signature actually gives me permission to ask stupid questions, is there a particular nation or circumstance you are referring to?

I am refering to the USA, and in particular to imprisonment without charge (Abu Ghraib + Guantanamo Bay, which have been discussed at length in other threads), and the use of torture as an interrogation technique (this is not exclusive to the USA).

The use of torture, which I find particularly repugnant, assumes that the person is guilty from the start, and allows the person to be subjected to brutal and inhumane treatment without the benefit of a trial to establish their innocence/guilt.

[Coral Rhedd]

I am refering to the USA' date=' and in particular to imprisonment without charge (Abu Ghraib + Guantanamo Bay, which have been discussed at length in other threads), and the use of torture as an interrogation technique (this is not exclusive to the USA).

The use of torture, which I find particularly repugnant, assumes that the person is guilty from the start, and allows the person to be subjected to brutal and inhumane treatment without the benefit of a trial to establish their innocence/guilt.[/quote']

 

Okay. But I am actually not referring to the legal process (I certainly agree with you about the above.) What I am referring to is people's personal opinions.

 

I think if we are really honest with ourselves, most people form ideas of the guilt or innocence of people. Nowhere is this more evident in high profile criminal trials, such as the OJ trial for instance. I will say forthrightly that I thought he was guilty, I still think he is guilty despite the verdict, and I thought so almost from the time I saw that white Bronco on the news heading south. I was very disappointed when he was acquitted because I thought the jury had been swayed by emotionalism and not facts. I thought it was a defeat for women who might be more inclined to report abuse had the verdict been different.

 

If I had been living in LA and called to jury duty, I would have been disqualified based upon the fact that I had already formed an opinion. And rightly so.

 

I think it is okay to express outrage. You are outraged at the treatment of those prisoners. But it is not anyone's private presumption of their guilt that caused them to be treated in that manner.

 

Will you disagree with me if I express the strongly held personal opinion that Donald Rumsfeld is responsible?

[mustang292]

Posted by CoralRhedd: Must we view people as innocent until proven guilty?

 

Guess you didn't read about the Salem Witch Trials.

Yes, they should all be considered innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise you open up pandoras box.

[Coral Rhedd]

Guess you didn't read about the Salem Witch Trials.

Yes' date=' they should all be considered innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise you open up pandoras box.[/quote']

 

That's a rather good point mustang. So do you view OJ as innocent?

[mustang292]

I wasn't in the Jury. The Jury consisted of people who were able to read and look at the True evidence without having to read the distorted Tabloids. They said not guilty. I accept their decision.

[Kygron]

Coral Rhedd, I'm going to try to be nice (meaning simply: don't specifically ask for my opinion please)

 

the law may be black-and-white, but human actions are not. this is why we change our laws, or have many, many loopholes in them.

 

for a discusion of how to "fix" negative behavior and the ethics involved you may check here:http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7664

 

aside from all this, you DO have the right to assume someone is guilty. you are allowed to avoid all contact with the person. you may leave town and live somewhere else, etc. however these are all things YOU must do, you do NOT have the right to make OTHERS do the work (for example forcing the assumed guilty to leave town) so that you may maintain your life.

[Coral Rhedd]

Coral Rhedd' date=' I'm going to try to be nice (meaning simply: don't specifically ask for my opinion please)

 

the law may be black-and-white, but human actions are not. this is why we change our laws, or have many, many loopholes in them.

 

for a discusion of how to "fix" negative behavior and the ethics involved you may check here:http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7664

 

aside from all this, you DO have the right to assume someone is guilty. you are allowed to avoid all contact with the person. you may leave town and live somewhere else, etc. however these are all things YOU must do, you do NOT have the right to make OTHERS do the work (for example forcing the assumed guilty to leave town) so that you may maintain your life.

 

Actually, I do have exactly that right. It is called freedom of assembly. Goes along with freedom of speech. Heard of those? We all have the right to attempt to shape our communities and the values of our communities. Each of us not only has the right to try to improve the world and our own particular environment according to our own beliefs -- we practically have an obligation.

 

This includes my right to prioritize the rights of women over the rights of one ex-football player who is a proven batterer at least.

 

Not too long ago the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey thought of settling in the town where I live. The local response was not welcoming. In short, they would have had a little problem being accepted at the local country club. There is no law that says we must assume that justice works perfectly everytime. As someone who has accompanied victims of crime to court, I know all too often that it does not. The evidence that the jury hears is different than that which the victim advocate hears, which is different than that which the psychologist hears, which is different from that which the physician gathers.

 

I made it clear that I wasn't interested in lynching people nor do I have any particular interest in running people out of town, despite your suggestion that I do. (But I know, you were just being nice so mischaracterizing what I said shouldn't bother your conscience.)

 

I simply think that assuming that we cannot express opinions as we wish outside a court room setting is as silly as judge holding me in contempt of court if I tell my next door neighbor that his rulings stink.

 

In the sphere or our families, our churches, our social circle, and even our communites, we may say what we like about any public figure -- whether that figure came to our attention through his publicist or by being arrested. Sometimes censure is the only avenue left to decent people.

[YT2095]

I could no more judge a person without correct evidence than fly to the moon.

 

I even afford simple reactions in a test tube THAT courtesy!

[Coral Rhedd]

I could no more judge a person without correct evidence than fly to the moon.

 

I even afford simple reactions in a test tube THAT courtesy!

 

If you limit evidence to what is permitted in a courtroom, you won't be doing much science.

 

BTW, how come you can post in the locked Michael Jackson thread and I can't?

[YT2095]

I`m a Moderator.

 

and you`ve totaly missed the point, when I try a chemical reaction, I wait until it is finished and complete before I judge it and draw any conclusions about it.

How could I not afford my fellow man the same courtesy?

 

otherwise we may as well just pick people off the streets at random and put them in jail!

who cares if they`ve done anything or not, we don`t need evidence!

 

think, Salem Witch trials (

[Coral Rhedd]

I`m a Moderator.

 

and you`ve totaly missed the point' date=' when I try a chemical reaction, I wait until it is finished and complete before I judge it and draw any conclusions about it.

How could I not afford my fellow man the same courtesy?

 

otherwise we may as well just pick people off the streets at random and put them in jail!

who cares if they`ve done anything or not, we don`t need evidence!

 

think, Salem Witch trials ([/quote']

 

Quote me one place where I proposed picking people off the streets and putting them in jail. Nor have I proposed running people out of town. Nor have I proposed any other remedy other than the right to form an opinion. And where have I said I form opinions entirely without evidence? You and others wish sanitize the process of coming to a conclusion by saying that the only evidence an individual can consider is that which is presented in a courtroom. You wish to confine forming an opinion about guilt or innocence to judges and juries. What a strange idea of individual freedom. If I see evidence that is not presented in a courtroom, am I supposed to ignore it because some judge rules it inadmissible?

 

Have you ever sat with a woman and held her hand while she submits to a rape exam while tears run into her ears from crying? I have. And the perpetrator was found innocent but I know he was not.

[YT2095]

I will say forthrightly that I thought he was guilty' date=' I still think he is guilty despite the verdict, and I thought so almost from the time I saw that white Bronco on the news heading south. I was very disappointed when he was acquitted because I thought the jury had been swayed by emotionalism and not facts. I thought it was a defeat for women who might be more inclined to report abuse had the verdict been different.

[/quote']

 

Based upon WHAT evidence?

 

and then you go on to say "I thought the jury had been swayed by emotionalism and not facts."

 

and yet you try THIS tactic "Have you ever sat with a woman and held her hand while she submits to a rape exam while tears run into her ears from crying? I have. And the perpetrator was found innocent but I know he was not."

 

now I never claimed the legal system was Perfect, no sensible person would.

it IS however preferable to your "method".

[Coral Rhedd]

Based upon WHAT evidence?

 

and then you go on to say "I thought the jury had been swayed by emotionalism and not facts."

 

and yet you try THIS tactic "Have you ever sat with a woman and held her hand while she submits to a rape exam while tears run into her ears from crying? I have. And the perpetrator was found innocent but I know he was not."

 

now I never claimed the legal system was Perfect' date=' no sensible person would.

it IS however preferable to your "method".[/quote']

 

Why is mentioning a direct experience emotionalism?

 

I felt that the DNA evidence as I understood it at the time was pretty conclusive.

 

If you remember that jury, they were pretty strange. How many people actually were replaced on the jury as the trial progressed? I watched an interview with some jury member -- one that was replaced as I remember, and a couple that gave interviews afterward. They seemed most influenced by the police officer that was characterized as a racist (Mark something or other) and the glove-doesn't-fit incident. That glove had been damp. Leather shrinks. I also thought OJ was mugging as he "tried" to pull on that glove. I also remember the evidence about the the shoe print and how few people in the nation wore Bruno Magli shoes in that size.

 

My "method" as you refer to it has been formed by many cases I have experienced as a victim advocate and as a court-appointed advocate for children. I have seen justice fail too many times to be very impressed with what goes on in courtrooms. Talk about emotionalism: I have seen decisions made more upon the judge's mood than anything else. No one who works in the legal system is very impressed by its record as a finder of facts. Cops actually do a better job. What is impressive is that it imposes order upon chaos. But if you think prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys think the process is always fair just because it produces a conclusion, then you haven't listened to them gripe!

[YT2095]

I couldn`t agree more with regards to the Police doing a great job only to see their efforts wasted in a law court, I have personal experience of this, and have heard quite a few police friends say exactly the same.

 

mentioning a "direct experience" such as the one you`ve outlined is Emotionalism because the "while tears run into her ears from crying" would be thrown out as Irrelevent to the case your Honour, and also to this thread topic.

 

it seems to boil down to the Head v/s Heart arguments. the owness of proof must rest with clear evidence of guilt, NOT "A Feeling" or any other emotional rationale.

[Coral Rhedd]

I couldn`t agree more with regards to the Police doing a great job only to see their efforts wasted in a law court' date=' I have personal experience of this, and have heard quite a few police friends say exactly the same.

 

mentioning a "direct experience" such as the one you`ve outlined is Emotionalism because the "while tears run into her ears from crying" would be thrown out as Irrelevent to the case your Honour, and also to this thread topic.

 

it seems to boil down to the Head v/s Heart arguments. the owness of proof must rest with clear evidence of guilt, NOT "A Feeling" or any other emotional rationale.[/quote']

 

I began the the thread topic. The topic of the thread is basically, Is okay to form personal opinions of guilt or innocence outside of a courtroom? You just don't happen to agree with me. Please note that the topic is in the General Discussion Forum.

 

However, since you seem so eager to discuss the courtroom -- even though that diverges from the thread topic:

 

In the U.S., describing the emotional state of a victim is not only admissible but usual. It goes to the victim's state of mind. Excited utterances are also an exception to the hearsay laws.

 

Do you really think juries decide guilt or innocence without their emotions being engaged?

 

Furthermore, in the sentencing phase of a trial, victim impact statements are allowed.

[YT2095]

When asked for yes.

 

 

you started as "Must we view people as innocent until proven guilty? "

 

my point is that there Needs to be a baseline from which to work around, so we start of as Innocent and employ evidence to prove Guilt.

 

we could just as easily work from the Guilty and must prove Innocence employing evidence, this however has proven to be equaly flawed as the former, with added "side effects" of Stigma attatchment to boot.

 

and so the current method (although not perfect) has less in the way unwanted effects, social, psychological and even financial etc...

because like it or not, peoples emotions get in the way and hinder the process of Logic and Due Proccess.