Is one innocent "until" proven guilty?

Question

Modern governments are jealous of the rights of the citizen and are increasingly introducing rogue laws and procedures which militate against such rights. We therefore need to be increasingly vigilant.

Gun law policing is rampant and even habeas corpus is going down the plughole. Other bulwarks of liberty are being eroded too.

So is one even 'innocent until proven guilty' anymore? To my mind that expression always carries with it a presumption of guilt.

Shouldn't it more rightly be UNLESS OR UNTIL proven guilty?

Answer 1

You could be right, but I've a question regarding your statement that > governments are jealous of the rights of the citizen  <.

It smacks of a taste of the juvenile, 'you don't like him / her because your just jealous' ranting.

How do you come to see it in that way?

In France, as I understand it, the onus is on the accused to demonstrate his / her innocence of the charge laid at their feet ....prior to being actually 'charged' ~ although I may be wrong in my understanding.

>  So is one even 'innocent until proven guilty' anymore? To my mind that expression always carries with it a presumption of guilt.  <  This tends to suggest that the Public is inclined to automatically believe that because a person is charged with a crime, therefore, they are guilty ~ prior to a trial.

But that says a great deal about the thinking (or lack of it) by the Public ....until the shoe is on the other foot, of course.

I've done jury service, and have not found any of the prisoners guilty, partly through 'not believing the evidence given by the Police' (whilst believing that the charged men were as likely 'Guilty' of being rogues and likely other crimes), and partly because of the ridiculous adversarial 'back n forth'  word games.

'I say you did this'.

'No I didn't'.

'And I say you did' .....etc.

Sorry, but I don't have an answer, beyond the one you suggest ~ at the moment.

Sash.

Answer 2

Legally, yes. In the eyes of society, not really.

Answer 3

does this apply to rape, vawa, dv etc?

Answer 4

The doctrine is "presumed innocence". When a defendant is seen in court, the jury is supposed to assume that the defendant is innocent until the prosecution can PROVE that is not the case.

A guilty person is guilty regardless, they either did the crime, or they did not. The US Justice system is set up as such (at least in theory) a person cannot be convicted of a crime without proof. An accusation, public opinion, and prejudices aren't enough.

Answer 5

Hypothetically, yes. However don't get your hopes up until your case receives a dismissal due to a 'not guilty' ruling.

Answer 6

Once is innocent until proven guilty still, but one's innocence can be in question. The media plays a large role in this, but in the court room, America still has one of the fairest legal systems in the world. Even though it might not be a pure court system, one would much rather stand trial in an American court, where a lawyer is guarentreed and appeals are possible, than a crazy military/communist court where one is presumed guilty.

Answer 7

Youre right, every bit.

Answer 8

Wow, deep.  I like your train of thought though.  I believe that it SHOULD be UNLESS, but unfortunately it reads UNTIL.  I agree that UNLESS speaks volumes to the presumption of innocence while UNTIL suggests that "big brother" will be working overtime to prove-at all costs-your guilt.

Answer 9

I had a lawyer one time tell me it was the other way around; you're guilty until proved innocent.  The way somethings go he just might have a point there.