Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next


Poll #619411 Justice

Do you believe in "innocent until proven guilty"?

Not really
Absolutely not
Depends on the situation

If you said "Depends", in what situations do you *not* think proof beyond reasonable doubt should be required?

Mainly because the issue's come up in at least two specific arguments I've been having recently.


( 21 comments — Comment )
Nov. 24th, 2005 05:49 pm (UTC)
I said "mostly" as a reflection on my inability to always manage it, but my wish that I could be more honourable.

It gets hard when someone has proven themselves to be a lying bastard to take each invidividual accusation separately and continue to believe in innocence each time: but I *suppose* Blair could be telling the truth this time?
Nov. 24th, 2005 06:04 pm (UTC)
Heh, yeah, there is that. I wasn't talking so much about what I believe about people, as whether they should be punished by law - it's come up recently in discussions about both terror suspects and accused rapists.
Nov. 24th, 2005 06:07 pm (UTC)
Then I am definitely on the "innocent until proven guilty" side.

However, I think it correct if the police have evidence of a pattern of behaviour where previous attempts to convict have failed, that they be allowd to at least *argue* that "pattern of behaviour" is evidence.

Of course, there is still the little problem of daft juries. The guy convicted essentially because he had three passports in four years and an old how to make a bomb manual will be out on a miscarriage of justice release shortly, *I've* had the same number of passports in the same length of time. It only takes losing one relatively soon after renewal.
Nov. 24th, 2005 08:11 pm (UTC)
My SO had a passport stolen and the following year I washed his replacement passport. The Passport Office reacted to this by giving him a one year only passport, which was a total pain crossing borders - everyone was supicious of him. Luckily, after a year without asking for yet another passport they gave him a 10 year one again.

I hate the idea we all have to live a blemish free life to be free from suspicion.
Nov. 25th, 2005 01:43 pm (UTC)
It's horrible. There's so many completely innocent things you can do that'll get you flagged on police lists and stuff.
Nov. 25th, 2005 01:45 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I don't necessarily have a problem with past convictions or accusations being taken into account. I can see the theory of not having them, but sometimes they're such strong supporting evidence that it seems weird to leave it out.
Nov. 25th, 2005 01:46 pm (UTC)
Urgh, and I hadn't heard about that guy. That sounds dreadful.
Nov. 24th, 2005 06:06 pm (UTC)

I don't believe anything Tony B Liar says, though. :(
Nov. 25th, 2005 01:44 pm (UTC)
Well, it won't be long before we get Gordon instead... I feel silly for hoping things'll be better then, but they *might*...
Nov. 24th, 2005 07:38 pm (UTC)
If we ever accept the presumption of guilt non of us are safe, there are some who believe that because we no longer have the death sentence the burden of proof can be lessened, the damage caused by a wrongful conviction can be as destructive as executing the victim also some will convict relying on the possibility of an appeal later.
Nov. 25th, 2005 01:42 pm (UTC)
All good points. It's hideous when you're sure someone's done something and can't punish them cos there's no proof, but I think that's better than punishing without proof :o(
Nov. 24th, 2005 08:13 pm (UTC)
But I also believe in aspiring to standards of behaviour that are higher than 'would I get convicted of anything?'
Nov. 25th, 2005 01:40 pm (UTC)
Yeah, it would be nice. Humans are depressing.
Nov. 24th, 2005 10:56 pm (UTC)
Were you going to do a companion poll for "women consent to sex unless they can prove otherwise"?
Nov. 25th, 2005 01:33 pm (UTC)
I was thinking about just talking about the actual case, but I didn't want it just to turn into another flamewar.
Nov. 25th, 2005 01:35 pm (UTC)
I apologise: I shouldn't have brought it up in this comments thread. I won't take offense if you delete or freeze.
Nov. 25th, 2005 01:37 pm (UTC)
On the other hand, if you want to continue the discussion here... :-)
Nov. 25th, 2005 01:39 pm (UTC)
Heh, no, I've deleted now. This is a friendly thread. :o)
Nov. 25th, 2005 01:53 pm (UTC)
Oh, fair enough.
Nov. 25th, 2005 01:03 pm (UTC)
i dont see how a society can function in any other way. to have guilt decided before before a trial is to completely predjudice the potential outcome. an give the authorities the power to put anyone who disagrees with them in prison or whatever by acusing them of any crime.
Thats my official line.

one of the stupidest things the british government has ever done is the holding of suspected IRA members without trial. dozens or hundreds of young catholic men in northern ireland were taken in without grounds and held without charge. many of those men went in dissilusioned with the british government but came out as hardened IRA loyalits due to being presumed guilty. that led to the most bloody and violent period in the irish conflict.

do we really need to be doing that again?
Nov. 25th, 2005 01:37 pm (UTC)
Oooh, good points. That's what they can do with the prevention of terrorism thingy...
( 21 comments — Comment )


bad wolf
Notes from extinction

Latest Month

November 2010
Powered by LiveJournal.com