About the "presumption of innocence" in public opinion.

[blondeatlast]

There is none. Have at it--it aids the healing and it might change things.

We of the webs are entitled to throw accusations and guilt for whatever and to whomever we deem fit.

From Dan Abrams, who knows a thing or two about criminal defense and prosecution and jury selection (regarding Bernie Madoff, in this case):

But unless I am sitting in the jury box armed with that power I, and any other nonjuror for that matter, have no obligation, moral or legal, to embrace that legal fiction (presumption of innocence by public).

The same applies, for example, to hearsay evidence. It's generally inadmissible in court, and yet most of us live our lives based on what people we trust tell us they heard or learned.

Some claim that, because legal banditos like me refuse to presume every defendant innocent, the prospective jury pool is polluted, thereby making it impossible for jurors to presume innocent a defendant in a high-profile case. Malarkey. That is why we have jury selection.

The goal is not to find jurors who necessarily know nothing about a case, but to find jurors who can fairly evaluate evidence and determine guilt or innocence. No question, extensive media coverage can make the selection of a jury take longer. In a worst-case scenario, a change of venue would be the remedy. But defense attorneys who complain about poisoned jury pools are often really just saying that they think prospective jurors are lying when asked what they've heard about the case in the media.

We, of the webs, will not likely be asked to determine the guilt or innocence of Jared Loughner or Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or any of the hundreds/thousands of others who have brought political rhetoric to the level it is today. Just like with any family tragedy, we question, we blame, and we discuss how unfair it all is. Unlike a family tragedy, we have media and politicians to hold accountable. This dialog is valuable--it heals and it may, in fact, cause those in power to consider their words and actions next time.

That, DU, is what those of us on the political interwebs do. And we should continue to do so.

Edit: misspelling.

[Exilednight]

1. Sorry, but I have to unrec this.

Presumption of innocence is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. It's also a cornerstone of our party. Until he either admits that he was the one who pulled the trigger, or is found guilty, he is still the alleged gunman.

[blondeatlast]

2. Do what you must--but you missed the point and it's particularly aimed at those who think

we mustn't tie Ms. Palin to this tragedy.

[Hugabear]

3. Sorry, I have to call BS on this

I get where the OP is coming from. Can you honestly sit there and say that if you have multiple eyewitnesses, along with video, showing the accused in the act of committing the crime, that we as the public should maintain the same standard of presumption of innocence as the court system? Nobody is saying this guy shouldn't get his day in court. But there are some instances where there is just so much overwhelming evidence that you'd have to have your head buried in the sand not to come to your own conclusion. He'll still get to present his defense in court, but in cases like this, the defense usually doesn't even try to argue whether the accused did the crime, as much as try to convince the jury that the accused was mentally unstable, and to make sure that he gets a fair trial.

[Exilednight]

8. "Nobody is saying this guy shouldn't get his day in court."

You already did.

He'll still get to present his defense in court, but in cases like this, the defense usually doesn't even try to argue whether the accused did the crime, as much as try to convince the jury that the accused was mentally unstable, and to make sure that he gets a fair trial.

In your mind, he's already admitted his guilt, now it is only to what degree he is responsible for his actions. If there is video, please provide link. I have not been able to find video through google search.

I'm not saying the guy isn't guilty, but let him have his day in court and have it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Hugabear]

9. I wasn't speaking about this particular case

My argument is that there are cases where the defense doesn't try to argue their client didn't commit the crime, but rather to what degree they're responsible.

In this particular case, I don't know if there was video of the shooting or not. But as the general public, we are allowed to make up our own minds as to whether or not someone is guilty, we are not held to the same burden of guilt as the legal system.

Case in point - would you say that George W Bush and Dick Cheney are guilty of war crimes? After all, they have never been proven guilty in a court of law. Yes it's a different case, but it is a real-world example and the concept should be the same.

[Exilednight]

10. Cheney and Bush have publically admitted to using

"enhanced interrogation", aka torturing suspected terrorists. Yes, they are guilty of war crimes by their own admission, but being the makers of law they were able to redefine torture. It's a bad comparison because we have admission of the crimes by Bush and Cheney, and they admit it with glee. We have no admission of guilt from this guy.

Now I need you to clear something up. First you state that there is video, now you are not sure: which is it?

[Hugabear]

11. Perhaps you should re-read my posts

I never said there was video of this particular shooting. In fact, I did not mention this particular case in my post. What I said was "if you have multiple eyewitnesses, along with video, showing the accused in the act of committing the crime". Note the use of the word "IF". I'm saying that IF there are multiple eyewitnesses, and IF there is video showing the crime, that we as the PUBLIC are allowed to form our own opinion as to the accused's guilt.

I'm really not sure where the confusion is here.

[Exilednight]

15. Here is what you posted

I get where the OP is coming from. Can you honestly sit there and say that if you have multiple eyewitnesses, along with video, showing the accused in the act of committing the crime, that we as the public should maintain the same standard of presumption of innocence as the court system? Nobody is saying this guy shouldn't get his day in court.

When you refer to "this guy" as the subject, then by default the "accused" is "this guy" since they are both the subject when grouped together in the same paragraph. It's basic English.

[H2O Man]

14. You are wrong.

The quote that you include shows -- without any question -- that this DUer is saying the person will get his day in court. More, it notes that it is most likely the defense will focus more on the possibility of going for "not guilty by reason of insanity," than attempting to argue the gunman had nothing to do with the crime.

Defense attorneys try to convince at least one juror -- if a case even goes to trial by jury -- that their person has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In this instance, it is "silly" -- and that is as polite a word as I can use -- to even pretend that there is any chance that any attorney would contest that the defendent pulled the trigger. Pretending to take some imaginary high moral ground by advocating that any attempt to do otherwise is pathetic, in this case. The right to a trial implies the right to have as good a defense as attorneys can provide -- and in this case, it can only be about if he knew what he was doing, not if he did it.

[H2O Man]

5. I'll recommend

to counter that. The presumption of innocence applies only to what goes on inside of a courtroom. The theory is not intended to apply to anywhere outside the courtroom. That cornerstone only applies to those events within the legal process, not to the court of public opinion. Vince Bugliosi has written extensively on this issue.

[lonestarnot]

7. Snort!

I did too!

[lonestarnot]

6. Not if we saw the fucker do it. Deet te fucking dee!

[kestrel91316]

4. I'm not the judge in charge of the case nor am I on the jury. I have NO

obligation to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am entitled to my opinion.

[blondeatlast]

12. LINK (my apologies):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569758678089027.html

[Gregorian]

13. Thank you. I've been struggling with this.

I can relight my torch and sharpen my pitchfork now. And I know what I just said. It isn't the same as what they said.