Do you believe that a person should always be considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law?

Question

i.e. proven "guilty beyond reasonable doubt"?

Should this apply to ALL crimes?

Should it apply to terrorism charges?

Just seeking out your opinions!

Answer 1

Of Course!!!

Answer 2

Not always. Would you allow someone that has been charged as a pedophile with plenty of evidence be near your children?.

Answer 3

Not in some cases.  I believe that a person committing a crime seen by more than one reputable witness shouldn't even have a trial.  It opens up stupid loop holes like Miranda.

Answer 4

Absolutely.  Despite this rule, look how many innocent people have been convicted and later proved innocent.  Any of us can  be in the wrong place at the wrong time and be accused of a crime.  (And no, my answer is not affected because I or a loved one have been arrested.)  While society has every right and need to protect itself, we lessen ourselves as human beings and as a society if we force those who are innocent to prove it.  The thought of serving on a jury and sending an innocent person to prison simply sickens me.

Answer 5

The phrase "presumed innocent" is merely a description of the burden of proof at a trial.  The jury is instructed that the prosecutor must prove the commission of the crime and if he fails, then the jury should acquit.  It has no greater meaning.  Yes, I do support the notion that the prosecutor should bear the burden of proof.  Proving a negative is too high of a burden on accused people and is contrary to the basic values of the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.  That clause should apply to all crimes.

Answer 6

the burden of proof must always be on the one claiming that someone did something.

It is next to impossible to prove that someone didnt do something. With the exception of dna evidence.  

Answer 7

All American citizens are guaranteed this right, as they should be, but none of these terrorists are American citizens, and none have that right in their home countries.   They could be found guilty here, and we still would not be allowed to jail them; they would be extradited back to their home country and dealt with there, so what is the point?  

Also, all bets are off during armed combat, which is what terrorism is.  When someone is firing at you, you are allowed to fire back without appealing to a judge and jury first.

Answer 8

Absolutely

Answer 9

Yes I believe the benefit of the doubt is the best approach and it should be applied to all criminal charges (including terrorism charges).  The burden of proof rests squarely on the State/Government.  If it were the converse, it would require defendants to prove that he/she is innocent.  

"It's better to set a guilty man free than to imprison the innocent."  

Answer 10

   Yes!