Innocent until proven guilty......

A certain thread has rattled my cage recently because from the word Post it turned into a lynch mob.
What ever happened to innocent before proven guilty eh? it is one of our best laws of the world and a basic human right.
I think we should remember this because being falsely accused of something can wreak a life, sure investigate the claims but I really thought better of some.
So I for one will continue to presume innocence until proven guilty.

So a question to you all would you like people to presume innocent before guilt If you had allegations made against you?.
Now flame on.

a reply to: boymonkey74

If you are referring to the alleged crimes of Andy then the fact remains innocent or not a huge problems remains.

If he is guilty and there is no media stir people like that will use there money and influence to hide such a thing.

As long as there is a stir and public attention its a lot more difficult to hide any crimes.

No its not fair. But the rich and powerful don't play fair.

Plus this is the price one pays for being "royalty" and living a life of luxury on the tax payers time, every move ones makes and fart one breaks the public and media will be watching like a hawk, there has to be some downside to the life of ultimate welfare family.

People accused of sex crimes are guilty even when proven innocent.

a reply to: boymonkey74
There are two accusations you can never come back from. Rape and child molestation. Even if you are not guilty, those labels will follow you everywhere.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
People accused of sex crimes are guilty even when proven innocent.

In the real world, with real people, it's the other way around. "Guilty until proven innocent" especially when dealing with
Law enforcement who can often act as judge, jury and executioner.

a reply to: superman2012

Yup I have seen it happen irl..a pal put a drunk girl to bed at a party next day arrested for rape it went to court and the girl admitted she made it up...it ruined his marriage job his life.
All that woman did was to harm the real victims of rape.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
People accused of sex crimes are guilty even when proven innocent.

True.
I used to know a guy that was arrested for indecent exposure(He was taking a leak along side the highway). He is now on the sex offenders list permanently. His attorney said his chances of getting his name removed were next to nil.

Note: He was guilty, but of a sex crime? I don't think so.

Maybe he shouldn't have "waved" at the cars passing by...?
It used to be legal to relieve ones self if necessary.....pretty much anywhere.....what happened to the human condition?

a reply to: boymonkey74

It irks me too.

He is a member of the Royal Family. That means that some people just irrationally hate him.

In some peoples eyes he's a Lizard. or Illuminati. Or both.

Some folks think that he's a freeloading sponge who lives off taxpayers money.

Some folks just don't understand tradition and history, because they come from places that have very little, and as such they choose to criticise the royals out of ignorance.

All of those things mean, of course, to those people that he absolutely must have done something bad. In their eyes he's guilty.

Maybe he has. Maybe he hasn't.

Fact is, as of the time I'm typing this, no one actually knows for sure.

But that doesn't stop a good witch-hunt, does it?

a reply to: boymonkey74

as i stated once a long time ago, i always look forward to reading your posts.
i am in total agreement on this one.

people are quick to jump to conclusion...... until they are accused of a wrong doing.

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: boymonkey74

In some peoples eyes he's a Lizard. or Illuminati. Or both.

jim morrison was an admitted lizard man... no... a lizard king. so for me lizards are cool.
ha h a ha ha

originally posted by: boymonkey74
So I for one will continue to presume innocence until proven guilty.

We should all think that way. Sometimes it's hard. Sometimes we get lazy and assume guilt. But your statement is a good reminder not to do that.

I presume your talking about British courts? The statement"innocent til proven guilty" is one of the biggest cons in British history.
It stems from the known fact that first impressions are infinitely more powerful than what comes after. So when in court it is always the prosecution that puts their claims first therefore in the judges and the juries eyes their deliberations Must stem from "your guilty and YOU have to prove your innocence".Especially if the prosecutions evidence is delivered by a police officer as their evidence was always beyond reproach.
It is only recently that the police have been challenged on their evidence gathering and reporting, but only in a very minority of cases.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: superman2012

Yup I have seen it happen irl..a pal put a drunk girl to bed at a party next day arrested for rape it went to court and the girl admitted she made it up...it ruined his marriage job his life.
All that woman did was to harm the real victims of rape.

This example made me laugh, the guy cheating on his wife ruined his own marriage not the drunk girls lie also your pal could have passed some std to his family, nice guy.

a reply to: neformore

Fact is, as of the time I'm typing this, no one actually knows for sure.

All except the accuser & the accused...

Which leads to one of societies least talked about & understood mantra...

Does the benefit of the doubt go to the accused, or the accuser...



Personally it should be neither if we are to really uphold justice & scrutinise every detail...

But in reality, people are going to side with whichever they perceive to be the victim...

Sadly in rape cases, the victim, whether innocently accused or truthful accuser, has their Life destroyed in the process & aftermath.

a reply to: thesaneone

Put her to bed, saneone, put her to bed...

Not "slept with her"...

a reply to: thesaneone

He did not sleep with her.
He put her to bed because she was drunk.

Id wager 15% of the people in prisons are not exactly guilty. In America if they nab you up for a small crime...lets say you have 3 joints in your car. You claim they aint your joints. So they up the misdeamor pot charge to a felony for selling. Because you had 3 individual joints and maybe 70 dollars in your wallet they felt you must have been selling the joints. You feel you are innocent becuase it really was your buddy's weed and you certainly werent selling it. You fight it and lose because....they block the testimony of anyone in your case. They block witnesses who could say they weed was bought by the friend. I kid you not...talk to people who are prosecutors and defense attorneys...you dont get to see what evidence was blocked. You'd probably over throw the government if you did.

Now of those 15% that I think are "innocent" a good handful were up to no good and in the wrong place at the wrong time...or were maybe aware of something going on. But still...the system is absolute crap. No one should support it in any way. Add that in with that most people only get a public defender and you are really screwed.

a reply to: boymonkey74

My apologies on the misinterpretation.

And for the record I agree with your op.

Let me correct a misconception in the US law about innocent until proven guilty.

It only applies to the trial itself.
Not pre trial.
At bail time there is a presumed reason to be charged. Meaning guilty