Frisbinator
Registered Senior Member
If you're innocent until proven guilty in the US, then why do you have to await trial in jail?
innocent until proven guilty
- Thread starter Frisbinator
- Start date
innocent until proven guilty is stupid. its bull like that that allowed OJ to go free after killing 2 people.
we need to use medieval law: throw 'em in a lake. if they're innocent, they sink and die. if guilty, they'll float. if they're guilty, kill 'em.
we need to use medieval law: throw 'em in a lake. if they're innocent, they sink and die. if guilty, they'll float. if they're guilty, kill 'em.
Oh, good. Means I can get away with rape and murder as long as I know how to swim.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if some lawyer had tried the topic argument ages ago. More accurately, I would be surprised if it's never been attempted.
Which, of course, means there's a record out there offering some semblance of an answer.
Maybe I'll come up with it. I'll take a look around.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if some lawyer had tried the topic argument ages ago. More accurately, I would be surprised if it's never been attempted.
Which, of course, means there's a record out there offering some semblance of an answer.
Maybe I'll come up with it. I'll take a look around.
Frisbinator
Registered Senior Member
When someone pays the bail, do they only get paid back if the person shows up for their trial, or do they never get that money back?
Frisbinator
Registered Senior Member
And no "tiassa", it doesen't mean that you'd be innocent if you knew how to swim. It means you would be burned or hung instead of drowned.
("He's simple, he's dumb, he's the pilot")
Depends on the method of any given jurisdiction. Or are we throwing out double jeopardy, too? ("Oh, we didn't realize he knew how to float. Let's try burning him, then.")
A trial is a trial.
Edit: It does occur to me that I had it backwards, though. I forgot that those trials were intended to destroy people.
Such is the problem, though, with myopic notions like, "innocent until proven guilty is stupid".
I mean, Hapsburg should be in prison already for molesting children. After all, since people can be convicted on false evidence, I'd say it will be a lot tougher for him to prove he's never hurt a child that way than it would be to fake evidence to show him guilty. And since the burden's now on him (after all, "innocent until proven guilty is stupid", so I don't have to provide a single witness or victim), he'd best just go down to the police station right now and confess and ask to be locked up; the courts might go easier on him if he did so.
Frisbinator said:
Depends on the method of any given jurisdiction. Or are we throwing out double jeopardy, too? ("Oh, we didn't realize he knew how to float. Let's try burning him, then.")
A trial is a trial.
Edit: It does occur to me that I had it backwards, though. I forgot that those trials were intended to destroy people.
Such is the problem, though, with myopic notions like, "innocent until proven guilty is stupid".
I mean, Hapsburg should be in prison already for molesting children. After all, since people can be convicted on false evidence, I'd say it will be a lot tougher for him to prove he's never hurt a child that way than it would be to fake evidence to show him guilty. And since the burden's now on him (after all, "innocent until proven guilty is stupid", so I don't have to provide a single witness or victim), he'd best just go down to the police station right now and confess and ask to be locked up; the courts might go easier on him if he did so.
Last edited:
Hapsburg,
Your post count threw me off (I was assuming you joined around the same time as I). I was alluding to a previous thread with my last post. (oh, and I hope you make good use of highlighting when reading posts, it really adds to the flavor/hilarity)
Furthermore, can you give any reason why "Guilty until proven innocent" makes any more sense than "Innocent until proven guilty"?
Your post count threw me off (I was assuming you joined around the same time as I). I was alluding to a previous thread with my last post. (oh, and I hope you make good use of highlighting when reading posts, it really adds to the flavor/hilarity)
Furthermore, can you give any reason why "Guilty until proven innocent" makes any more sense than "Innocent until proven guilty"?
essentially, the same reason why innocent until proven guilty makes sense.
having someone guilty until there is an unreasonable doubt that they're innocent makes it easier to stop crimes before they happen.
in an I.u.p.G case, a guy who is accused of murder might get off unless evidence in provided. lets say that he, like OJ, was the real killer. he might go around and stab more people.
In a G.u.p.I case, an accused murderer would be locked up, giving less of a chance of the murders happening again, unless they are proven innocent.
having someone guilty until there is an unreasonable doubt that they're innocent makes it easier to stop crimes before they happen.
in an I.u.p.G case, a guy who is accused of murder might get off unless evidence in provided. lets say that he, like OJ, was the real killer. he might go around and stab more people.
In a G.u.p.I case, an accused murderer would be locked up, giving less of a chance of the murders happening again, unless they are proven innocent.
What about someone that is accused of kidnapping and holding people against their will--nothing more than that? If they were arrested and held until proven innocent, then they are being held against their will. If they were innocent, then the crime they are being accused of is being commited, ironically by the accusers.
So really "guilty until proven innocent" makes the same amount of sense as "innocent until proven guilty" the way you word it. Give evidence of how it makes more sense than "innocent...." (I'm sick of typing it over and over).
Hapsburg said:
Can't prove it, can you?
I mean, name-calling ain't much of a defense, Hapsburg.
Yes, that's why I tried to make a joke. You know, a "joke". Ever heard of "jokes"?
In the meantime, you might wish to consider that it would have been left at that, except another person--you know, "other people", ever heard of them?--made a related point, to which I was responding.
Nonetheless, why aren't you in jail right now? Because you're innocent until proven guilty.
And that's just stupid, isn't it?
Very well.
However, in addition to being a poster at Sciforums, I am also a moderator, and will have to inquire whether or not we can permit a child molester like you at this board. As long as we have no legal exposure, you're welcome here. But since you advocate illegal acts against other people, I do have my concerns about allowing you to remain in the Sciforums environment.
Now then, would you prefer that I respect your asserted standard and see you banned from this website in order to make a point that should already be as obvious as the satellite dish sticking out of Cartman's ... uh ... yeah ...?
Or should I ignore your standard? Wouldn't it be more sensible for us to respect a lack of evidence suggesting such crimes, and hold you innocent until anyone can prove you guilty? In the meantime, we could even discuss what's wrong historically and philosophically with presuming guilt.
Of course, I'm torn. I would hate to be so disrespectful to you as to presume your innocence until the accusation can be substantiated. As one poster once expressed to me long ago, awarding her the vital respect and decency that would compel one human to assist another in troubled times would be a terrible violation of her person. So, yeah. I'd hate to be cruel and irrational here.