Must we view people as innocent until proven guilty?

[Coral Rhedd]

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

And I don't propose changing the current law one bit. I like the presumed innocent concept in law.

 

Did I really express myself so poorly that you presumed I wanted to eliminate the presumption of innocence from criminal trials? Somehow I don't think I did.

 

I simply believe that it is rather pretentious to act as if we never form opinions outside that context or that we never should. By pretentious, I mean people kidding themselves or others.

 

Did none of your officer friends ever express an opinion about an accused guilt or innocence privately to you before a trial was even begun. In my experience cops always think they have the right guy.

 

Just what do you think the role of a victim advocate might be if not to be supportive of the victim?

 

By your standard a victim of a crime could not express an opinion about the guilt or innocence of the accused even when her "evidence" was as direct as is possible.

 

I am not as confident as you are that removing emotion from a decision results in the right one.

[YT2095]

I simply believe that it is rather pretentious to act as if we never form opinions outside that context or that we never should. By pretentious' date=' I mean people kidding themselves or others.

 

Did none of your officer friends ever express an opinion about an accused guilt or innocence privately to you before a trial was even begun. In my experience cops always think they have the right guy.

 

By your standard a victim of a crime could not express an opinion about the guilt or innocence of the accused even when her "evidence" was as direct as is possible.

 

I am not as confident as you are that removing emotion from a decision results in the right one.[/quote']

 

how can you form an Opinion (right or wrong) without some sort of Data to support it?

 

yes they did, in fact they were caught red handed in one instance, and the court still let them off with hardly a good telling off!

 

that`s just plain daft! a Victim of Crime HAS evidence/data in order to make an opinion, that`s just my point, "I saw Mr X do this to my shop window" he`s guilty.

 

the removal of emotion from making a descision/judgement, is LESS likely to lead to the wrong one, yes indeed I`m perfectly confident about that

[Coral Rhedd]

how can you form an Opinion (right or wrong) without some sort of Data to support it?

 

I consider the victim of a rape crying and shaking during a rape examination as data. It is not definitive. It is one piece of the puzzle.

 

You are suggesting that I should witness such an event dispassionately. But if I did' date=' I would not be holding her had would I?

 

Allow me to repeat my question that you evading answering: [b']Just what do you think the role of a victim advocate might be if not to be supportive of the victim?[/b]

 

I am neither judge or jury and, in adult cases, I have never been asked to give evidence. But I have a perfect right to form an opinion based upon my experiences.

 

the removal of emotion from making a descision/judgement, is LESS likely to lead to the wrong one, yes indeed I`m perfectly confident about that

 

Actually, the New York Times reviewed a book that would seem to suggest otherwise. I will try to get you the link.

 

As I said previously: I am not as confident as you are that removing emotion from a decision results in the right one.

 

The reason I may feel this way is that the crimes I have dealt with are mostly exploitative or violent. I think the perpetrator is only one part of the picture. The victim should not be ignored. If a rape victim takes the stand and shows no emotion, I promise you, she will not be believed. But if she is emotional, juries often behave as if she is being manipulative. Juries give weight to the victim's emotions whether they should or not.

 

Tell me, what do you think is the proper way for a rape victim to behave on the witness stand?

[YT2095]

"You are suggesting that I should witness such an event dispassionately. But if I did, I would not be holding her had would I?"

 

Am I? don`t try and put words in my mouth that were never there, I`ve stated my position quite clearly.

 

as for: "Allow me to repeat my question that you evading answering: Just what do you think the role of a victim advocate might be if not to be supportive of the victim?"

 

it was ignored as Trivia, it has nothing to do with Guilty/Innocent. but since you insist, I have no arg with your deffinition of it, support is surely needed in such instances, where`s the problem?

 

"Tell me, what do you think is the proper way for a rape victim to behave on the witness stand?"

Again, what`s that (behavior) got to do with anything?

they have a DUTY yes! and that duty is to tell the truth to the best of their ability, nothing more, nothing less, (the FACT part I spoke of).

 

have you understood ANY part of what I`ve said correctly?

[JohnB]

Coral, in answer to your original question. Yes, the presumption of innocence is paramount.

 

Unfortunately, you are defeating a number of your own arguments.

Nor have I proposed running people out of town.

No, you didn't propose it, you did it.

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 more than one way to run someone out of town. (BTW, I have no idea who these people were.)

 

Of course everyone has an opinion, that is obvious. We don't delude ourselves into thinking we don't. I don't know how many times I've watched the news of someone being charged and thought "They got him/her". I now make a concious effort not to think these things as the person is "charged", not convicted.

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.

No offense, but that is exactly the thinking that leads to lynch law. For by that statement, it is "practically an obligation" for a racist to remove non whites from his neighbourhood. (Or vice versa) You cannot object because he would only be "improving his environment according to his own beliefs".

 

Slippery slope alert.

[Phi for All]

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']In some cases we think it is easy to judge innocence or guilt because the case seems so cut and dried. However, I think being judgemental tends to make it easier to form a hasty opinion in cases where there is less evidence. We humans tend to view other humans as a set of attributes rather than view their actions in context with the situation. This is something I fight hard to avoid, since I tend to think it is completely unfair when someone else does it to me. These days it is too easy for the media to sway public opinion with hints and suggestions.

 

To me it's like burning books. If we say it's OK to burn something outrageous, where is the line drawn next time?

[mustang292]

I watched a documentary the other day about a black man who was arrested,tried, and convicted of raping a white woman. He spent 20 years in jail until some highschool students examined his case for a school project. They had DNA tests run and found that he was innocent.

 

The woman at the time said it was a black man. The officer who arrested him said that he was the only black man in town with a white girlfriend, so they assumed it had to be him.

 

Because of their choice to decide him guilty before trial, the town generally decided he must be and convicted him.

 

He has lost an entire lifetime because of it. I thought about it for days because it ticked me off so bad. When the general population makes assumptions of guilt before a trial, It does effect what the jury, prosecution and Judge will do. It's not morally right. (I am white by the way)

 

Coral_Rhedd, your posts reak of a closed mind. Even in your other threads. It takes 100 posts for you to open your mind and realize that you are not the only one on this earth. Maybe you have just had one of those lucky lives where no one has ever accused you of something you didn't do.

 

Sorry, I was getting a little frustrated.

[klanger]

I think people regardless of the crime should be treated as innocent till proven guilty, are as entitled to being treated fairly just as you or I are. If the people (which includes the press) were allowed to assume guilt based on "gut instinct" or a dislike of the person reportedly accused, then where on earth would you find a jury both fair and true? You wouldnt, because everyone will have been tainted by what they have heard and be closed to the facts. I dont know the American history, but werent the Salem witch trials about a bunch of oppinionated people working with very little fact but a hell of a lot of hearsay? Do we really want to step backwards in time? In the meantime yes! we are all intitled to our opinion, we are able to voice our opinion, however that said we are not entitled to expect everyone to agree with our point of view, and that is why, I believe, you are deemed innocent UNTIL proven guilty.

[Coral Rhedd]

Unfortunately' date=' you are defeating a number of your own arguments.

Slippery slope alert.[/quote']

 

If you disagree with me, why do you consider this unfortunate?

 

On thinking I ran someone out of town you said:

 

No, you didn't propose it, you did it.

 

What puzzles me here is that you actually quoted and then entirely misread what I said. If you will reread the passage I quoted, you will see that I never said I took any action in the matter. First of all they were thinking of moving here and used a local person to take the temperature of local feelings. The Ramseys are a rich couple -- former residents of Boulder, CO -- who have been under suspicion for having murdered their little daughter for years now. I friend of mine brought the incident I mentioned (of the Ramseys wanting to move here) to my attention after the fact. You see, I never read the local newpaper anymore.

 

So I did not run anyone out of town. But since I had read a former police detective's evaluation of the case and because the evidence presented in his book was quite fascinating, I was quite interested to learn that they had been thinking of settling here. Of course, you would not want to know what I think of the case because I do, in fact, have a very strong opinion based upon evidence that has been made very public.

 

Whether they settled here or not would probably have made little difference. We already have a couple of child murders in our small community every year. Some of these happen because Child Protective Services fails to remove children from the home when there are indications but not definitive proof of child abuse. I wish they would be more proactive, but this would require that they form an opinion and make a judgment to err upon the side of protecting the child.

 

I am tired of cowardice that costs lives.

 

Do you think that when guilty people go free that innocent people do not pay the price?

 

Of course everyone has an opinion, that is obvious. We don't delude ourselves into thinking we don't. I don't know how many times I've watched the news of someone being charged and thought "They got him/her". I now make a concious effort not to think these things as the person is "charged", not convicted.

 

This is exactly what I said in the first place. I believe we have a right to our personal opinions. If people had not been outraged by the deaths of children in our community, we would not now be passing a law that makes killing your own child murder. In the past years, these parents who killed their children could not even be tried for murder. Instead, the DA was compelled to try them under various child endangerment laws.

 

Of what use is freedom if it cannot lead to activism which can lead to change. A free society is meant to be dynamic, not static. Freedom of expression -- including expressing outrage -- fuels change. If people had never been outraged about slavery, I would have been reared in a slave state.

 

No offense, but that is exactly the thinking that leads to lynch law. For by that statement, it is "practically an obligation" for a racist to remove non whites from his neighbourhood. (Or vice versa) You cannot object because he would only be "improving his environment according to his own beliefs".

 

It would not be that he wants to improve his environment that I would object to. I would object to the racism itself -- or is that too judgmental?

 

Lynching is against the law in the U.S. Your argument here is specious because Jim Crow laws no longer exist. They no longer exist because good people made judgments and took action.

 

However there are some instances where I can understand people who are trying to run someone out of their own. A town in Colorado has recently been alerted that a convicted and released pedophile has moved there. The pedophile says he has had no treatment and might be likely to commit the same offense again. Naturally the townspeople are both worried and outraged.

 

However, let me assure you that I would not worry too much if a pedophile moved to my town. There are already so many here and it is the ones you don't know about that present the greatest danger.

 

Now I know you are going to argue that it is okay to agitate for change but that one must somehow contrive to do so without ever expressing one's opinion about the guilt or innocence of unconvicted but suspected abusers and murderers. However the most powerful agent for change is not logic as you all would prefer to think. YT would argue that emotions are not very useful. I clearly differ with him. For understanding victimology they needed. Dispassionate people cannot understand how victims suffer and are unwilling to look at that suffering. For promoting change, emotions are the fuel of choice.

 

I am not a scientist. I am an advocate, an activist, and a writer. If I want improve the world, I will use the tools at my command. In science, people use evidence. In activism, anecdote is king.

 

There is little other choice to raise public awareness about child abuse than to use examples of where justice failed children.

[Coral Rhedd]

To me it's like burning books. If we say it's OK to burn something outrageous' date=' where is the line drawn next time?[/quote']

 

Slippery slope arguments can be used against almost any viewpoint. I have no doubt that someone has used them against some of yours. Also, please remember that I am not arguing for any change in the presumption of innocence in courts of law. There is no law that says that private citizens must practice presumption of innocence in their daily thoughts. This would be a dangerous encroachment upon people's right to think as they please. A slippery slope indeed in a nations whose constitution guarantees freedom of speech. Thought precedes speech.

[Coral Rhedd]

I watched a documentary the other day about a black man who was arrested' date='tried, and convicted of raping a white woman. He spent 20 years in jail until some highschool students examined his case for a school project. They had DNA tests run and found that he was innocent.

 

The woman at the time said it was a black man. The officer who arrested him said that he was the only black man in town with a white girlfriend, so they assumed it had to be him.

 

Because of their choice to decide him guilty before trial, the town generally decided he must be and convicted him.

 

He has lost an entire lifetime because of it. I thought about it for days because it ticked me off so bad. When the general population makes assumptions of guilt before a trial, It does effect what the jury, prosecution and Judge will do. It's not morally right. (I am white by the way)

 

[/quote']

 

Do you really think that I do not understand that innocent people are convicted or that there are false accusations of rape? Do you think I do not understand that people are racist and that mob mentality is dangerous?

 

Coral_Rhedd, your posts reak of a closed mind. Even in your other threads. It takes 100 posts for you to open your mind and realize that you are not the only one on this earth.

 

Guess what? I think you are entitled to your opinion. I am an American and a staunch civil libertarian. I think freedom of speech is the most important right we have. Have you read the constitution? Or have you been so infected with political correctness that you think it is a dead document?

 

Maybe you have just had one of those lucky lives where no one has ever accused you of something you didn't do.

 

Yes. My high school English teacher accused me of plagiarism my junior year. I persuaded him he was wrong. The burden of proof lay with him. He could not prove I plagiarised, because I did not.

[YT2095]

I`m drawing the line HERE!

 

comments such as: "I am tired of cowardice that costs lives.

 

Do you think that when guilty people go free that innocent people do not pay the price?"

he nor ANYONE here ever stated that!

 

secondly: "I am not a scientist. I am an advocate, an activist, and a writer. If I want improve the world, I will use the tools at my command. In science, people use evidence. In activism, anecdote is king."

 

that`s all well and good in the correct furum, this being a Scientific community is NOT that place!

 

although I and others here sympathise with your more than evident stress/hurt/pain and subsequent crusade to that effect, this really isn`t the place you should be seeking help or advice in, you`re Venting, and that`s OK! but here???

probably not the Best place to be doing it.

 

I say this to you without prejudice or as a Moderator, but as a fellow Human to another!

[Coral Rhedd]

that`s all well and good in the correct furum' date=' this being a Scientific community is NOT that place!

 

probably not the Best place to be doing it.

[/quote']

 

Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of the General Discussion Forum

 

although I and others here sympathise with your more than evident stress/hurt/pain

 

Excuse me???? To what are you referring?

[JohnB]

Coral, if I misunderstood you, I apologise. In the section I quoted, it appeared that your community would have gone out of it's way to make these people feel unwanted. It also came across that you were quite happy with this. I must admit it says volumes about your community that they felt they had to "take the temperature of local feelings". The details of their case may indeed be fascinating, but if you can't prove it in a court, then they must be treated as innocent. Period.

I wish they would be more proactive, but this would require that they form an opinion and make a judgment to err upon the side of protecting the child.

This is the whole point, who's opinion? On what do they base it? How do you ensure that the person making the decision is acting in the best interests of the child and not their own Ideology? A person with fundamentalist religious feelings would think that it is "in the best interests of the child" to remove them from parents not of their particular sect, there are some radicals in the feminist movement that think if the household contains a male, then the child is in danger. I assume you would disagree with these extremists, but can you show anyone why your opinion is better?

Do you think that when guilty people go free that innocent people do not pay the price?

And when innocents are accused, do they not pay a price? When a teacher is accused it is front page news, but when he is aquitted because a student made up the accusations you would be lucky to read it on page 20. Yet his life and career is destroyed.

 

Quite often they are forced to move. Why? Because people have formed their opinions on the accusation, the truth be damned.

There is no law that says that private citizens must practice presumption of innocence in their daily thoughts.

I know of no such law in any nation. (Thank goodness.) However it behooves us to use that principle as a guide for our actions. To do anything else is trial by media and public opinion. Oh goody, mob rule. If you understand that mob mentality is dangerous, why do you advocate it's breeding ground?

In activism, anecdote is king.

So truth is at best a secondary concern behind telling a good story? This is how you make a better world? Fairy tales? Righting wrongs that may not even have happened?

 

That is a scary world you are talking about.

[Coral Rhedd]

John, given YT's post #37, I do not feel that I have permission to proceed with this discussion -- especially since he has not answered my post #38, where I have asked some questions. I feel he has personalized this discussion and I will not proceed until he clarifies his comments about my "hurt and pain."

 

I am puzzled as to why someone would want to remove all emotion from a discussion -- as if emotion were some sort of disease we should rid ourselves of -- and then focus on personal "emotional" issues he is only speculating about to undermine another's position. Isn't that making a judgment without evidence.

 

But he is a moderator after all. So I will leave it.

[YT2095]

Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of the General Discussion Forum

 

Excuse me???? To what are you referring?

 

I don`t think you DO, it says DISCUSSION, and that involves 2 or more people (dialog), and since your so keen to put words into other peoples mouths and assume thoughts on THEIR BEHALF, you may as well write a monologue all by yourself and chat until your heart`s content (or not as it would seem), after all, you really don`t NEEd us to have a chat at all!

 

the MJ thread was closed for good reason, it was heading bad ways, and yet as soon as a blink, you`de opened up 2 new threads to similar effect minus the individual involved. and continued on your what can only be described as a personal Crusade!

 

thirdly, don`t try bring any of the "Oh I`m being Oppressed" crap into the arg, I AM a Mod yes, and that (as I`ve stated) does NOT enter into it, YOU asked ME!

 

I`ll not dignify anymore of your "strawman" garbage on this matter with a further reply, I`ve stated my case as well as I`m prepared to, from there you may do with as you please.

 

I wish you well

[Guest ZacharyC]

Why goes the presumption of innocent or guilt neccessary? Why not just say that you don't know if they are innocent or guilty?

 

http://tidr.blogspot.com/

[Vladimir]

Has Saddam had a trial?

[klanger]

I believe so yes, seem to remember them talking about it on the tv not long after he was caught.