innocent

B

brelea09

Inactive
Here,s one
The laws states Innocent till proven guilty!!!!
Well if that is the case they why handcuff and arrest ? if ya hav,nt been to court yet. Really it is GUILTY TO PROVEN INNOCENT true!!!
 
Being arrested has nothing to do with being guilty. it just means you have been charged with a crime. Believe me we have it good in Mexico it really is guilty until proven innocent.
 
brelea09 said:
...The laws states Innocent till proven guilty!!!!
Well if that is the case they why handcuff and arrest ?...
Click to expand...
Those are completely separate matters.

"Innocent until proven guilty" refers to the presumption of innocence and burden of proof in criminal litigation (the "Golden Thread of British Justice" as Rumpole of the Bailey puts it). This means that at trial, the prosecution must prove all the element of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury concludes that the prosecution has failed to meet that burden, the defendant is entitled to acquittal.

Arrest and restraint are another thing entirely. In the course of a lawful custodial detention or arrest, the police are permitted to use reasonable force, including mechanical restraints, for their own protection, to secure the person in custody and to prevent escape.

It's been working like that for several hundred years.

espnazi said:
...in Mexico it really is guilty until proven innocent...
Click to expand...
As it is in Spain, France, Italy and other countries whose legal system is based on Civil (Roman) Law rather than Common Law.
 
"As it is in Spain, France, Italy and other countries whose legal system is based on Civil (Roman) Law rather than Common Law."


The French Code of Criminal Instruction was an addendum to the Code Napoleon and was enacted in 1808. It provided for trial by jury, the right to counsel, and the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

As far as I know, the Code of Criminal Instruction is still in effect in France.
 
Arrest and restraint are another thing entirely. In the course of a lawful custodial detention or arrest, the police are permitted to use reasonable force, including mechanical restraints, for their own protection, to secure the person in custody and to prevent escape.
Click to expand...


When I was in law enforcement, the use of handcuffs was dependant what happened and who was accused of what. It was also used to ensure our safety and the safety of others, including the accused.
If we showed up at a fight and people were still agitated and there was a chance of a continuation of hostilities, someone or more than one was handcuffed.
If we showed up and things appeared to have calmed down a bit, no handcuffs were used.
If we were transporting a suspect, handcuffs were usually used. Law enforcement officers have learned the hard way that the guy who was calm at the scene of the incident would sometimes become dangerously violent when being transported. That is why you now see the 'cage' in most police cars.
 
One of my buddies has a very skewed view on our justice system. He believes that if you are sitting in the defendants chair you are guilty because you must have done something to land you in court. He told me if he was on the jury, the guy is guilty, simply because he has been charged and is in court.

Try as a I might I could not show him the error of his thinking. He thinks cops dont make mistakes, DA's always know who is guilty and who is innocent and never accuse innocent people, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time is your fault.

Luckily he has yet to serve on a jury, I hope if I'm ever in the hot seat, my jurors are smarter than that
 
Try as a I might I could not show him the error of his thinking. He thinks cops dont make mistakes, DA's always know who is guilty and who is innocent and never accuse innocent people, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time is your fault.

Luckily he has yet to serve on a jury, I hope if I'm ever in the hot seat, my jurors are smarter than that
Click to expand...

Holy smokes! I can tell you one thing, if he EVER did serve on a jury then I would be sure to call the court and inform them of his beliefs.
 
Oh, and FYI, even though this is late...


Since World War II the Italian legal system has been massively reformed, and has incorporated many of the protections found in Common Law, including the presumption of innocence to the accused.

The Seattle PI had an interesting rundown on the Italian legal system given the Amanda Knox case.
 
If your being charged it really seems guilty until proven innocent. Especially when the judge has already made up his mind that you are guilty. Granted, that's NOT how it is supposed to work, but that is how it SEEMS to work. At least locally.
 
Luckily he has yet to serve on a jury, I hope if I'm ever in the hot seat, my jurors are smarter than that
Click to expand...
Next time you talk with your friend, remind him that he has to take an oath to answer questions honestly during juror voir dire. If he tells the truth, he'll never be on a jury. If he lies, he has committed perjury and he deserves to be sitting in the defendant's chair.
 
So whatever happened to Jury of your Peers...which means to me a jury comprised of people that know me and can speak for my character wether good or bad?

Today's juries are always strangers, and I believe that if they knew a person knew you personally that they would be discharged from duty.
 
For one thing, I've never heard that a jury is supposed to be people who know you. That's not the definition of "peer".

Second, the COTUS makes no such promise anyway. It guarantees "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."
 
So, if your friend's computer catches a virus and downloads child **** and he gets the whistle blown on him by some repair technician, your friend gets arrested and is placed on trial - He is automatically guilty, eh? BTW, the preceding was based on reality.


doh_312
One of my buddies has a very skewed view on our justice system. He believes that if you are sitting in the defendants chair you are guilty because you must have done something to land you in court. He told me if he was on the jury, the guy is guilty, simply because he has been charged and is in court.

<SNIP>He thinks cops dont make mistakes, DA's always know who is guilty and who is innocent and never accuse innocent people, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time is your fault.<SNIP>
Click to expand...
 
I don't know if it's the technical definition or not but, so far as I know, it basically means that the jury will also be citizens of the same locality wherein the crime occured.

One of my old bosses always said that "peers" meant that a jury should be people of your same lifestyle and/or profession. The problem with that? Can imagine a jury of doctors sitting for a malpractice case? Can you say acquittal, always?
 
Wherever in the world do you get the idea you are entitled to a jury of your peers? The Sixth Amendment speaks only of the right of an "an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . ." Almost assuredly, anyone who knows you is not going to be impartial.

No disrespect, but if people actually read the Constitution for themselves, they would not put up with a lot of the nonsense in our legal and political system.
 
The "jury of your peers" business comes from old English Common Law when class distinctions were more apparent and generally more accepted. In particular, it meant that if you were nobility, commoners would not be sitting in judgment of you. It has no application in today's world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top