Do you believe in the constitutional principle of presumptions of innocence?

[Douglas Carpenter]

This question is not specifically in regards to the PSU scandal - but in general - Do you believe that when someone has been accused or implicated in a criminal offense should they be presumed innocent until and unless a fair and impartial judiciary process has convicted them of the alleged crime?

Of course given the nature of media reports it can only be expected that people will quite naturally form opinions. Which statement comes closest to what you consider the correct attitude toward those who have been accused or implicated but not yet convicted of a criminal offense?

[justiceischeap]

1. Other

I would normally say yes but in cases where you have the act either caught on tape or have a live eyewitness to the act, it's kinda hard to then presume them innocent.

[ret5hd]

3. Eyewitness testimony is among the most unreliable testimony. Really.

[justiceischeap]

5. I'll use the PSU case as my example

I understand that it is becoming common knowledge that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, especially when it's broken down between racial lines (a white person testifying against a black person, often can't tell the difference, etc.) but I think McQueary and the janitors that witnessed the rapes of the young boys had no trouble identifying the actor in this case.

[orpupilofnature57]

6. After forensics what else is there?

[the other one]

14. Witnesses claimed shots fired from Grassy Knoll

Proof that witnesses are notoriously unreliable.

Bullshit.

If witnesses are unreliable then we should throw out witness testimony in ALL criminal trials. In fact we rely on it. It is only thrown out when it is inconvenient.

[ret5hd]

2. I strongly believe our justice system should presume innocence...

I do not believe I, as an individual without the means to dispense favor or punishment, must be held to those same high standards.

[frylock]

21. +1

[orpupilofnature57]

4. Yes , but past " Implications and Accusations " should be admissible

[leveymg]

7. I believe that the principle is selectively applied, depending upon who the perpetrator is.

Some of the greatest criminals -- e.g., George H.W. Bush and others -- have burrowed into the intelligence/political establishment and are so protected by layers of secrecy and executive privilege that they repeatedly get away with mass murder, literally.

This is a far greater problem than Mobbed-up sports figures with perverse appetites and big gambling debts.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Yes, as a criminal matter.

But opinions can be based on our best understanding of the evidence.

[LAGC]

9. Depends,

When it comes to people in positions of power, I tend to believe the powerless, unless there is clear reason to suspect otherwise.

I give most average folks accused of crimes the benefit of the doubt though.

[NNN0LHI]

10. I believe in the principle of presumption of innocence in a court setting

Elsewhere not so much.

Everybody has a right to their own opinion as far as guilt or innocence is concerned. I think the First Amendment covers that one pretty well.

Don

[Ohio Joe]

35. +1

Well said.

[Salviati]

11. I believe in the legal presumption of innocence

people who aren't involved in the legal proceedings are certainly entitled to their own opinions however, as far as the issue of guilt or innocence goes.

[Lyric]

12. Legally, yes.

Of course peoples' opinions are not subject to this standard--and shouldn't be.

[pipi_k]

13. When it comes to the legal system...

of course. It makes sense to start out being "innocent" and making the government prove its case rather than the other way around.

In the court of public opinion, well, what are you going to do. People will always opine one way or the other.

:shrug:

[GodlessBiker]

15. In a criminal courtroom, yes. Can a nursing home fire a nurse ...

because the nurse has been charged with poisoning three of his/her children, or does the nursing home have to wait until the nurse is convicted?

Is a grand jury's finding that there is probable cause to believe that the nurse committed the murders sufficient reason to fire the nurse?

[dmallind]

16. This is a LEGAL not universal presumption

There is absolutely no real, no necessary, and certainly no possible blanket presumption of innocence amongst individuals. I certainly have no problems working on the assumption that some folks are guilty before they have been tried and convicted. Were I on a jury I would do my best to be tabula rasa but you cannot stop the human ability to detect patterns and draw inferences.

[seabeyond]

17. i cant answer how you lay out. i leave it to trial to figure it out. the courts presume innocents

and that is the only way i believe it can be done. i on the other hand, will not clear mind to say, all info that comes in will go into a foggy haze so i dont draw any conclusions myself. i will look at the information and maybe or maybe not come to my own conclusions, depending the information provided.

[FarCenter]

18. Suppose a bank robber is aprehended coming out of the bank, loot in hand

There are witnesses, including the tellers and customers. The dye pack in the bag of money goes off, staining the perp.

Practically, the robber is guilty as soon as the facts are known.

For legal purposes, the robber is presumed innocent in a court of law until the verdict is reached by a jury.

However, most clearcut cases never go to trial. Either the perp pleads guilty or the DA cuts a deal.

[Cerridwen]

19. Of the accused or of the victim? n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. in the law, yes. in public opinion, not always

if i were on the jury, i would presume innocent or recuse myself. in the face of overwhelming evidence, it is ridiculous public opinion should remain neutral

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. .

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Sure, but it only applies the the government. People are free to have their own opinions

[gratuitous]

24. I used to

But I was instructed, quite specifically and passionately by several posters right here at DU, that "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process" are just words from a quaint old document, totally unrelated to what a nation's gotta do to protect itself. And I'm thankful for the correction. It bothered me mightily that the United States had arrogated to itself the privilege of shooting people in cold blood and dumping the body at sea, as well as the right to remotely launch a missile at any target we see fit and too bad for anyone under that missile when it goes boom.

I still have my lapses, but more and more I'm coming into conformance with the way we do things in the United States. As to anyone who disagrees, I believe the proper response is "fuck 'em."

I hope I got that right.

[coalition_unwilling]

30. Presumption of innocence is so 20th Century - n/t

[Bandit]

25. I think the Bush* Doctrine pretty much destroys that belief...

:shrug:

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. one more

[elleng]

27. Its a required assumption for members of juries;

not so for members of the public. We are entitled to arrive at conclusions based on the information available, and I am not different from anyone in that regard.

[uncle ray]

29. of course that doesn't happen.

i recently sat on a jury hearing a child molestation case. the defendant admitted some guilt before the trial even started. 2/3 of the jury felt he was guilty of all charges because he admitted to some. the evidence just wasn't there for several of the many(60+) charges. one juror actually accused us who demanded actual proof beyond a reasonable doubt as trying to let a child molester off even after we reached a guilty consensus on a vast majority of the charges. it was no real surprise, but interesting nonetheless to be part of this type of case and seeing how peoples prejudices are not set aside. i am quite proud that i was able to objectively weight the evidence, while the other jurors prejudices made me feel like i was defending the accused.

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. Capturing the Friedmans

Your experience sounds very similar to the 1987 Case of Arnold Friedman, a highly respected and very popular Long Island High School teacher. This case was the subject of an award winning documentary called, "Capturing the Friedmans." There is no question that Mr. Friedman was guilty of somethings - at least position of illegal underage nude photography from the Netherlands. But the police and social workers were not content with prosecuting him on those charges alone. Both Friedman and his eighteen-year-old son ended up being sentenced to several years in prison for much more serious charges for which there was little or no real evidence.

It's a very disturbing film which does show how it is possible that someone who is certainly not completely innocent and admitted as much from the beginning - ended up dying in prison for offenses that he most probably did not commit.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7773075938315691451#

[elleng]

34. Sorry to hear of this, glad you did what you could in most difficult situation.

Jury/case I sat on was in no way as emotionlly charged, but certainly had emotional aspects. Federal trial, guy accused of attempting to deceive 9/11 victims' fund; we wanted to find him guilty, but the government just didn't make its case. Interesting 'thank you' nod from the judge at the end, who seemed to recognize our quandary.

Great experience for me, to see the group of jurors so seriously addressing issues, even tho a couple not quite as plugged in as others.

[Zanzoobar]

28. Yes

But I also believe the grad student should have tried, convicted, and bashed his fucking brains in on the spot.

[Raine]

31. Legally yes but I among others still have an opinion. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

32. only in a court of law - same as the constitution says

Public opinion is something else entirely especially if the accused happens to be in your own community. It's a damn good thing that presumed innocence only pertains to a court of law otherwise people would be barred from taking steps to protect themselves and others from an accused person who has not yet been found legally guilty nor take steps to protect themselves and others from an accused person who was legally found not guilty but is still believed to be so.

To those people that claim they believe that presumed innocence means everywhere including a court of law what would you really be thinking and doing if Sandusky was your next door neighbor and you had young sons? Sorry, but people DON'T presume innocence outside a court of law regardless of lofty claims to the contrary nor should they be required to.

[Romulox]

36. "Presumption of innocence" isn't mentioned in the Constitution. It flows more from our innate sense

of justice than from any specific Constitutional principle or right.

[rucky]

37. I just go with whatever Nancy Grace says.

:hide:

[stlsaxman]

38. Absolutely- to NOT presume innocence is to presume guilt.

And the Constitution protects us from that.

[NutmegYankee]

39. In a Court of Law, Yes, for others instances - No.

Presumption of Innocence is rooted in the legal system, such that the prosecutor must prove that the accused is guilty, rather than the accused prove their innocence.

Outside of legal systems it is different:
If I am robbed by a man on the street and that man is caught, I would not be expected by a reasonable person to state that the man "allegedly" robbed me. I saw it with my own eyes and was the victim. He did it, period. I am not required, morally or legally, to presume the robber is innocent.

[etherealtruth]

40. As a matter for the courts/government ... a wholehearted yes

Noting that there is a difference between actual guilt and being found guilty in a court of law

[Greybnk48]

41. He was seen with his penis up a child's butt in a shower.

It's hard to presume his innocence under those circumstances. You know, like in Wisconsin when justice Prosser said the female justice he assaulted had "put her neck into his hands."