Innocent until proven guilty

This might have been posted in the wrong thread so mods feel free to move it


I am starting this thread to get a basic understanding of this term in general. I am not a lawyer nor am I part of any police force. I am just an average Joe that wants to learn a little more about the process when someone is arrested for a crime. This goes for just about every crime I would imagine so just bare with me here.


Every day I watch programs like "The first 48" that deal with homicides or violent crimes, and when I watch these programs and I see someone being arrested for a cime they always mention that these suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

So, therein lies my question and perhaps I am just misinformed or have no real understanding of how the law works. If you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, why are you arrested, taken to jail and then given a bond (in some cases)?

I guess what I am not understanding is that if they haven't been proven guilty yet in a court of law, what right does the police have to arrest this person?

Now before you bash me or flame me, this is just a general question because again, I have no knowledge of how the law works and what the law says about officers and what their duty is in these cases. It's really just an overall question I guess. If they haven't been proven guilty and obviously haven't been to court, are they just being arrested on suspicion?

I know that I'll get laughed at here, but please try and take this with as much of a neutral attitude as possible because I really am lost when it comes to this sort of thing. I've always wondered why people are treated the exact opposite of that particular term?

It just seems to me, from my experience that people are presumed guilty until proven innocent in a court. When you think about the entire judicial system doesn't that make more sense? You go to court to prove your innocence right?
I know this will probably end badly and I'm sure arguments will commence, but I wanted to ask the question for my own personal knowledge. Knowledge is power and I am trying to better myself by being informed and learning as much as I possibly can.

So, if anyone has any answers for me, I'd love to hear what you have to say.

Because innocent until proven guilty is just a cliche anymore and does not apply in these commercial corporate military courts. It is just to keep people thinking it does. You are actually guilty before you walk in and it just a matter of how much is the fine and how much time.

That's the short answer and I don't have time for the long answer right now. Suffice it to say that they write bonds one every case that goes through these courts bundle them into mutual funds and trade them on the open market. So your fine is just some return on the investment. You are literally chattel being traded they don't care anything about you or whether your guilty or innocent. If you get imprisoned they are just warehousing the collateral for safe keeping. If you have ever wondered why they seem to want to increase the crime and pass more laws rather then reduce crime and have fewer laws this is why, The more cases the more money they make. These courts are all corporations with EIN numbers and Dunns Numbers you can look them up, it's a business to make money period no truth or justice about it!

[edit on 8-3-2010 by hawkiye]

Now before you bash me or flame me, this is just a general question because again,

No reason for anybody to bash you.

Dang good question IMO.

I would guess that for the most part, once you are arrested, people do see you as guilty.

Sometimes, you don't even have to be arrested for people to see you as guilty.

Just the way our system rolls.

But in the end, at least you have a chance to prove your innocence. Although by then, most still consider you guilty.

Flag

being arrested is sort of like being pulled aside. You are brought to jail, which is a sort of waiting room. You quite often can leave the waiting room by bonding out...this is basically a piece of collateral to show you will show up for the offical hearing.

its all ceremonial of course..when your standing in jail, you dont feel like your being temporarily detained while they review the evidence...feels like your already imprisoned and guilty, even if your not...but meh, symbolism over substance is the rule of the day.

This is a very good question, and one I have thought about for years.

First, you have to understand our society and how it wants us to think and feel. The "innocent until proven guilty" saying, is what I call a "way of making ourselves feel better about ourselves" saying. If you think about it for a while, you will understand it. Who, in their right mind, wants to be put in handcuffs and hauled off to jail before even being proven guilty or innocent? Nobody does, because deep down inside, we know this is the wrong thing to do to any being, human or otherwise. This is what you call a necessary evil, or a way of thinking in our minds, it`s ok to do this wrong thing. A way of making ourselves feel better about it, and salving our conscience.

Just imagine for a moment, being in a situation where you are arrested for doing something that you did not do. You try and tell the police that you had nothing to do with it, but yet, everything points to you. You are put in handcuffs, read your rights, and hauled downtown. How innocent do you feel? How guilty do you feel? This happens all the time, and yet we are told, oh, your innocent until proven guilty. In all reality, does that make you feel any better with what you went through? Not at all.

As for the bail or bond..............well, i guess you have to pay the system to let you wait at home till the court date. Oh, by the way, does anyone know, if you are innocent, do you get your bail or bond money back?



[edit on 9-3-2010 by FiatLux]

I believe you do get your money back, except for any fee paid to a bondsman. I think this is the case whether or not you are found guilty or not guilty, but I may be wrong about that.

Originally posted by Semus. . .I've always wondered why people are treated the exact opposite of that particular term?

When you think about the entire judicial system doesn't that make more sense? You go to court to prove your innocence right?

When you are read your rights, it's good advice not to talk to cops:

www.youtube.com...

That is interesting. I have noticed in our local system that if you have the money, you can pay a higher (often much higher) fine and get no time, no probation, etc. Only if your crime hurts another person physically do they intend to seperate you from society.

And look at the forfeiture laws. It seems just another way to seperate you from your money or assets unless you can PROVE you got them through legally acquired money. I see people that have a lot of cash often accused of being involved in drugs some way or another. They say almost all money in circulation has trace scents of drugs even if you have nothing to do with them, you might have something a dog will hit on. I am fortunate to have a good job and often have a couple of grand on me. I have been pulled over for speeding and in the process of getting out my license the officer notices the cash. Oh, now there is probable cause, maybe probable cause in legal terms isn't correct, but they want to interrogate you about where you got the money, why you have so much etc.Well, that is my personal private business, not something I should be having to explain to get a ticket. And if you tell them that it isn't their business, you run the risk of some jerks claiming you were opposing an officer, or inhibiting his investigation. BS!

This all started after they started teaching officers to look past the ticket and look for other potential crimes on a traffic stop. And these days, if you try to invoke your 4th amendment rights about searches, etc. then you are going to have to wait for a K-9 unit, then if the handler says the K-9 alerted (whether he did or didn't) they will search and you end up spending an hour or two on the side of the road instead of letting them do it in the first place. I have trained my dogs at schools that also teach police K-9s and I have seen officers say their dog indicated while walking around a vehicle when in fact they didn't. You won't win that argument either and will just be harrassed that much more.

I feel like the innocent till proven guilty is BS these days, but legally they say it is the states burden in court to show you comitted a crime with evidence leaving no reasonable doubt. Well, that is easy for the state to do. They have unlimited funds to put expert wittnesses and even corrupt officers on the stand, or officers that perjure themselves and it is up to you to defend. It costs big-time to defend against the state unless it is a minor offense. At one time I worked on a task force investigating corrupt agents, but that is an entirely different affair.

Yes you are innocent until proven guilty.
But..................

The law enforcement and the Justice system needs to be certain of a few things before they just let you walk away free from a serious crime scene.

First thing, will you stick around for the trial, or will you just run away and hide someplace. They would probably base that on judging the sort of person you are, and your particular circumstances.

Are you a likely to present a danger to witnesses, or other members of the public, or commit more crime. The police have a duty to protect the public from you if they feel you present a serious danger.

Are you sane? A psychiatrist may decide you are suicidal and need to be placed in care. Or you may be physically incapable of looking after yourself because of intoxication by drugs or alcohol.

Many reasons why they lock people up after arrest.
A great many get bail the next day.
Often many strong reasons to KEEP someone locked up until the trial.

Yes you are innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes to be safe, you stay in custody until proof can be presented either way, or you can convince the authorities that you are no risk and will front court.

Originally posted by Monsieur Neary
I believe you do get your money back, except for any fee paid to a bondsman. I think this is the case whether or not you are found guilty or not guilty, but I may be wrong about that.

Of course you get your money back, once you front court.
Guilty or innocent, as long as you show up for the trial, you get all your money back.

That is the whole idea.
If you decide to run away, then you lose all that bail money.

Ok, but let's say you get arrested for, say, child molesting. Doesn't matter if you're innocent. Your name has already been published and your life will never be the same. People on the street have already made up their mind that you are guilty.

For example the show To Catch a Predator. Most of the people featured on that show were acquitted in courts of law. Do you think that matters to friends and family who saw them on the show?

That's why I vote for a publication ban for all arrests until after trials are over.

Trial by media is an interesting topic all by itself.

But realize that any Journalist or media outlet leave themselves wide open to be sued for defamation or libel, if they say or print anything that is blatantly untrue, and know it to be untrue.



[edit on 9/3/2010 by Silver Shadow]

reply to post by FiatLux

No, you don't. They keep it as "court costs". You are free to attempt to claim your money, but they make it near impossible to recover what is yours. but as they say, "that's how it is".

You're guilty until they can prove you're guilty. OJ Simpson could not have proved himself innocent. You can't win against the legal injustice system. If they don't get you for one crime they'll make up another. If they can't get you in criminal court then they'll do it in civil court. The best you can do is make life as difficult for them as they're making it for you.

I don't know how it works in the US, but i'll share how it works in Italy (maybe there are similarities):
a magistrate can keep you in Jail for one of the following three reasons: it is called preventive imprisonment and has to fulfill/meet the following requirements:

1) Danger of escape of the person under investigation
2) Danger of faking evidences from the person under investigation
3) Danger of repeating the same kind of crime from the person under investigation

In absence of one of these requirements, the only way to justify the imprisonment is that the person has been caught while committing the crime by police (flagranza, art. 382 c.p.p.)

Otherwise, after the first hearing, the judge must release you.
Bear in mind that it applies to all italians but Berlusconi.

But all the above means nothing after all because:
1) The magistrate is basically free to decide whether one can escape or not, and has not to even just explain why he believes that you might try to escape.
2)The magistrate is free to estabilish whether you can fake evidences, but there is no law ruling how this is supposed to be determined, so basically he decides according to his mood/his personal beliefs.
3)Each magistrate is supposed to be able to know the future and to be able to foresay what you could do before you do it.

Long story short, if a magistrate wants to keep you locked, he can.
In fairness, there's also to say that according to European Convention on Human Rights (art. 6.2)
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law", verbatim.
But each european Country acts on its own.
I know it doesn't apply to your Country, but it could be interesting to compare the two.
Thanks for sharing.

reply to post by internos


Just seems the same over there as it here.

2) Danger of faking evidences from the person under investigation

That one doesn't work LOL. Many criminals have friends and family members that can fake evidence for them.


To Semus,

The system is not perfect, I understand. Some innocents have been wrongfully imprisoned or held. But that is rare. Usually they are really guilty or have the knowledge of the crime.

That is why we have the grand jury. They review the evidence and if they decide that the evidence is overwhelming against the person, they will indict this person.

BTW, in one of the "First 48" shows they covered my friend's murder and they showed where I live

An arrest generally occurs when the police investigation uncovers facts sufficient to constitute probable cause to arrest. It is the judge (and or jury) that has the decision of guilt or innocence.

Therefore in a court of law one is innocent in the eyes of the court (judge and jury) until proven guilty. That is why in court burden of proof is always on the prosecutors.

The reason one gets locked up is because there has to be enough evidence to show they should not be allowed on the street. They have not been prosecuted and sentenced yet. They have not been shown to be guilty, but there is enough to lean in the direction of guilt based on whatever evidence is collected. You also have the fact that many people will not show up in court and therefore have to be in jail to make sure they dont flee. The only way for proof to be shown they are innocent or guilty is in court.

The term is more a legal jargon based on the assumption that most people are not criminals and that it will be up to the prosecutors to prove a person is guilty. Again, this has to do with being presented before the courts: the courts assume you are innocent until the prosecutors prove you are guilty.

Basically to sum it all up: It is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Not out on the street with cops.

[edit on March 9th 2010 by greeneyedleo]

This thread has received some great answers to my questions!


Thank you all for responding. Although opinions may differ, I think I get a better understanding now of why you are detained for any specific amount of time by the police.

There have been some great answers to that question in this thread so I thank you all for taking the time to respond. It's a tricky subject for sure, and some people share the same interest in this as I do which is actually surprising to me.

The idea behind the term just didn't make sense to me at first glance when you consider what happens to you outside of a courtroom.

That term only means something with those with friends, in the right places.

If people make stuff up about you and you are not liked in the right places, you have no rights and the police and government will kill you and care not.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
Some innocents have been wrongfully imprisoned or held. But that is rare.

The vast majority of people in jail in America have been wrongfully imprisoned. It is, in fact, very common. The really dangerous criminals, those alienating people from their God-given natural rights, work for the legal injustice system.