(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
Innocent until proved guilty is a basic human right,The phrase means simply that a person is not legally guilty until a jury returns a verdict of guilty.
Well Mr. Dove, I guess that would force even the Lord to declare them innocent, huh?
I think that human conscience in public interaction and the Lord are higher courts than the ones your rights refer too.
That dove thing isn't suppose to refer to the spirit of God, is it?!
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
Innocent until proved guilty is a basic human right,The phrase means simply that a person is not legally guilty until a jury returns a verdict of guilty.
Hehehehe!! ... This coming from a guy who is of a conservative mindset that, among other views, has a rather disparaging point of view re: the United Nations.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
Innocent until proved guilty is a basic human right,The phrase means simply that a person is not legally guilty until a jury returns a verdict of guilty.
my emphasis.
Note: NOBODY is on trial here. The right exists such that if, or when, they are before a judge and jury, that they will 1) be presumed innocent, and (2 is
presented all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
No. There is no trial here. Only public castigation. Now if one can find a law prohibiting public castigation of these flagrant scumbags, then maybe it's time to close shop..
see.. times have changed.. these psychos used to able to just go from village to village and set up a bunch of new marks.. now with the internet, people can
compare notes. That's not so bad, is it?
We are actually pretty civil here.. they used to run run snake oil salesmen out of town on a rail, form possees to round them up, and so on..
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
Innocent until proved guilty is a basic human right,The phrase means simply that a person is not legally guilty until a jury returns a verdict of guilty.
Read the context - which is precisely what I said. One must be charged for the presumption to come into play.
On Thursday, July 11th, Allen Iverson--the Philadelphia 76ers' All-Star Guard and NBA most valuable player for the 2000-01 season--was charged with three felonies and assorted misdemeanors. Prosecutors say he threw his wife of eleven months, Tawana Iverson, out of their house, naked, and subsequently threatened several men with a gun in his efforts to locate her. One of the men gave an account of what happened in a 911 call in which he suggested that this was the third time Iverson had thrown his wife out of their home.
In response to the charges, Larry Brown and Billy King, the Sixers' coach and general manager, say they firmly support Iverson, reportedly emphasizing that he should be "presumed innocent" unless he is proven guilty.
Such statements, though quite common, misconstrue the role of the presumption of innocence in a criminal case and feed the mistaken belief--shared by many--that the Constitution requires everyone in the United States to presume that an accused criminal is actually innocent until a jury finds otherwise.
"Innocent Until Proven Guilty": Literal Truth?
Recall another celebrity athlete who stood accused of spousal violence. During the year-long circus that was the O.J. Simpson trial, I encountered two odd claims by non-lawyers (and some misguided attorneys) with whom I was acquainted.
The first claim was that Simpson actually was innocent, and would continue to be innocent, unless and until a jury brought in a guilty verdict against him. For all but those who take the radical (one might even say preposterous) view that the truth of an event from the past magically changes when the jury reaches a verdict, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" cannot be taken as an accurate, literal description of reality. O.J. Simpson either did or did not kill Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and nothing that a jury says later can factually alter that historical truth.
No Command for Non-jurors to Suspend Judgment
A second remark I encountered during the year that Marcia Clark and Johnny Cochran became household names, was that we all must suspend judgment about O.J.'s guilt until the jury reaches a verdict, with the implicit correlative that an acquittal requires all people to believe that O.J. was innocent. Neither of these positions has any foundation in law or logic.
An audience watching a television show like The Practice or Law and Order must await the end of the program to find out what "really" happened. That is because the shows are fictional, and what most viewers want to know is whether--in the script--the accused is guilty or not. Because the truth lives only in the imagination of the show's creators, it is appropriate for the audience to delay all conclusions until the end, relegating suspicions and beliefs to the status of guesswork until the dramatic, and often unexpected, denouement.
The Presumption of Innocence in a Criminal Trial
What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of innocence? In a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence is an important constitutional protection for the accused. It means that the jury may only pronounce the defendant guilty if the physical and testimonial evidence presented prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put differently, the jury must say "not guilty" even when it believes the defendant is guilty and often, it follows, even when the defendant in fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and the Constitution order the jury to acquit.
The reason for this rule is that a guilty verdict subjects a person to incarceration, the deprivation of freedom that we all cherish and that is guaranteed us under normal circumstances. Though the acquittal of a factually guilty man is unfortunate and costly, it is an inevitable byproduct of a system designed to reduce to close to zero the odds that a factually innocent person will be convicted of a crime.
None of this, however, has anything to do with what the rest of us--the people of the United States who are not serving on a particular criminal defendant's jury--are obligated to think or say.
In the case of Allen Iverson, for example, the man who called 911 to report being threatened at gunpoint is under no obligation to presume Iverson's innocence. Indeed, if he takes the witness stand at trial and falsely recants his story as a favor to a friend (or as a loyal basketball fan), he will be guilty of perjury.
How to Interpret Inconsistent Verdicts
When O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder and subsequently held liable for wrongful death in a civil trial, some people wondered what they were supposed to think. For those who would treat the jury as a font of truth, it was possible to reconcile the verdicts--the evidence might have proved that Simpson probably killed Brown and Goldman, but it was not quite strong enough to eliminate all reasonable doubt. Significantly, however, we need not view the verdicts in that deferential, crabbed way.
Notably, in the civil trial, Simpson was forced to testify and had no recourse to the Fifth Amendment, as he had in his criminal trial. That too could account for the divergence in verdicts. So could the fact that a photo of Simpson in the Bruno Magli shoes he had denied wearing was available at the civil, but not yet at the criminal, trial.
The Right to Think and Speak Logically, Outside the Jury Room
However one views the Simpson and Iverson cases, the Constitution does not dictate what we ought to think or say. Indeed, it protects those thoughts and statements, regardless of their content or viewpoint, under the First Amendment. We therefore need not limit ourselves in the ways the jury is limited--in terms of either the evidence we are allowed to consider, the threshold that evidence must meet before we draw a conclusion, or even our own default presumption.
You can presume that Allan Iverson is guilty as charged, in other words, subject to rebuttal by proof that emerges in the next several months. You can do that, based on logic and the evidence you already know about, along with the fact that thankfully, a relatively small proportion of people charged with crimes are factually innocent.
What you cannot do, consistent with the Constitution, is bring your logical presumption of guilt, your willingness to infer guilt on the basis of inadmissible evidence (such as Iverson's prior bad acts), or your readiness to "convict without a trial" into a jury room. In that room, where twelve people hold the power to deprive a person of her fundamental freedom from physical confinement, the law and the judge's instructions rightly govern our thought processes.
Sherry F. Colb, a FindLaw columnist, is a Professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark and teaches courses in criminal procedure and evidence.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence,last I looked guilty of Rape is a penal offence
has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law no proof of guilt according to law has been established
in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. No trial has occured
The operative word here is "charged" as in "arraigned in a court of law" of a "penal offense" (where guilt would result in a loss of personal freedom). The (only) context (where this is true) is the criminal legal system. It is not even true of the civil legal system, much less the "court" of personal opinion.
I would go so far as to say that in order to avoid being accused, much less charged, one has to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. As such, no one who had been close to the man has said that none of this stuff could have occurred because he was never alone with a woman. And apparently when he was around the WC and HQ drones, he was more open due to the levels of "spiritual maturity" that abounded in those environments. At least with people like me (non WC - so less spiritually mature), he was subtle.
I am sure someone has pointed this out as well: TWI did not operate like the legal system when it came to the notion of innocent until proven guilty. There are too many people who report that they were kicked out with little idea of why (beyond the "crime" of asking a question or questioning authority) and certainly no opportunity to defend themselves. Why? Because TWI wasn't required to do so, either legally or ethically. As nice as presumed innocence sounds, sometimes it's not particularly practical.
When people were thrown out of Fellow Laborers, in the middle of the night, hundreds or even thousands of miles from home, we were not allowed to question why or even discuss it amongst ourselves. We were supposed to act like they never existed. There's a sometimes poster here (I won't mention names) who could tell you first hand what a traumatic experience that is. No "presumed innocent", no trial, just toss them out like yesterday's fish heads. And then they used that to let us know that we could be next.
I am sure someone has pointed this out as well: TWI did not operate like the legal system when it came to the notion of innocent until proven guilty. There are too many people who report that they were kicked out with little idea of why (beyond the "crime" of asking a question or questioning authority) and certainly no opportunity to defend themselves. Why? Because TWI wasn't required to do so, either legally or ethically. As nice as presumed innocence sounds, sometimes it's not particularly practical.
And they were not declared guilty of criminal activity either as such there was no legal claim to satisfy. Declaring one of guilt of a federal or state crime is just a wee bit different than questioning authority. Not that either should go on ,but the repercussions of the criminal charges don't compare.
As nice as presumed innocence sounds, sometimes it's not particularly practical.
Unbelievable........ All I can say is Hopefully if you are ever facing a jury they will uphold the law, even if you mention that you don't think it is practical for them to do so..
Unbelievable........ All I can say is Hopefully if you are ever facing a jury they will uphold the law, even if you mention that you don't think it is practical for them to do so..
excellent job of taking the statement out of context in such a predictable manner, rather than recognize it as an example of why presumption of innocence isn't practical outside of the courtroom.
just imagine what twi would be like if they were required to operate under presumption of innocence??? or any business that has employees... or any school... etc. etc. etc.
excellent job of taking the statement out of context in such a predictable manner, rather than recognize it as an example of why presumption of innocence isn't practical outside of the courtroom.
just imagine what twi would be like if they were required to operate under presumption of innocence??? or any business that has employees... or any school... etc. etc. etc.
Not really her premise was that it was not always practical I disagree I think it is in fact beyond that the law.
Unbelievable........ All I can say is Hopefully if you are ever facing a jury they will uphold the law, even if you mention that you don't think it is practical for them to do so..
It's not all you CAN say, but it is all you WILL say.
This is STILL neither a jury nor a court of law.
None of us have confused it for that, nor think the rules are the same for discussion and court- except you.
OUTSIDE the court of law, it is not practical to follow the rules of the law.
That's why we're under no requirement to do so.
(Except in your imagination.)
excellent job of taking the statement out of context in such a predictable manner, rather than recognize it as an example of why presumption of innocence isn't practical outside of the courtroom.
just imagine what twi would be like if they were required to operate under presumption of innocence??? or any business that has employees... or any school... etc. etc. etc.
Not really her premise was that it was not always practical I disagree I think it is in fact beyond that the law.
And your premise has been refuted, repeatedly, by people who actually KNOW the law,
who WORK with the law, who TEACH the law.
However, you, the layman who has never STUDIED the law, have concluded you understand the law
better than professors of law, etc.
More on the fallacy of presumption of innocence from [gasp] a law professor
A useful summary of what should be obvious but isn't, from a reader:
In law school, my Constitutional Law professor Akhil Amar frequently reminded us that the presumption of innocence is a courtroom presumption only. That is, before any evidence is introduced by the state, the jury in a criminal trial is bound to assume that the defendant is innocent. They are to to make no presumptions of guilt based on the fact that the defendant was arrested, indicted, and brought to trial. If the states presents no evidence, only the presumption of innocence is left, and the defendant must be aquitted.
However, outside the courtroom no such presumption is required (emphasis mine). Hence, an employer may fire an employee for stealing from the supply closet without first obtaining a theft conviction in court. A student may be disciplined or expelled from college if marjijuana is found in his room by an RA - despite the fact that no criminal charges are brought. Likewise, outside the courtroom we are free to speculate about the guilt of defendants before trial, or even after an aquittal (after all, an aquittal only signals that the state could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt - not that the defendant was innocent. Hence O.J. was aquitted, but later found liable for Nicole Brown's death by a civil jury who had only to find the plaintiff's case more probable than not).
It betrays a serious misunderstanding of the presumption of innocence to insist that we must refer to Brian Nichols only as an "alleged criminal" until he is convicted.(emphasis mine) Witnesses saw him commit his crimes, there are official records of his transfer to the court, and he confessed his crimes to his kidnap victim. Those following along at home are certainly entitled to draw the logical conclusion regarding his guilt.
I've been asked to explain more than once why, right from the beginning, I was saying publicly that there was no question Simpson was guilty. I take no proide in having been the first public personality to come out publiclyl against Simpson. It just happened that way. I was asked by the media how I felt about the case way back in the early summer of 1994, and I decided to be candid. Before I tell you why I did, I should point out that some people objected to my having done so. One reason was the presumptiopn of innocence in our society. Also, they felt as a member of the bar, I should, therefore, not have spoken of Simpson's guilt before the verdict.
Contrary to common belief, the presumption of innocence applies only inside a courtroom. It has no applicability elsewhere, although the media do not seem to be aware of this. Even the editorial sections of major American newspapers frequently express the view, in references to a pending case, that "we" -- meaning the editors and their readers -- have to presume that so-and-so is innocent. To illustrate that the presumption does not apply outside the courtroom, let's say an employer has evidence that an employee has committed theft. If the employer had to presume the person were innocent, he obviously couldn't fire the employee or do anything at all. But of course he not only can fire or demote the employee, he can report him to the authorities...
Illinois Governor Rod Blogojevich asks his constituents to give him the presumption of innocence they would expect for themselves if accused of crime.
And there is no question when and if Blogojevich goes to trial in a criminal court that presumption holds.
But there is no such presumption when it comes to the court of public opinion. At such times, the people of Illinois are entitled to make their own determination whether he is fit to hold public office.
Indeed, even if he went to trial and was found not guilty, that would have little bearing on his fitness for office. A not guilty verdict would only signify that a jury had found that the government and failed to prove his commission of crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The "reasonable doubt" standard is not the test for public service.
It would not even be the appropriate test for an impeachment proceeding before the Illinois Legislature. Indeed, the Illinois Constitution is silent as to the grounds for impeachment. It merely provides that if the lower house votes by a majority to impeach the Governor, the Senate may remove him from office, after trial, by a 2/3 vote. It does not even specify that there must be a "high crime or misdemeanor," as the Federal Constitution does.
Presumably, the test would be whether the Legislature believes that the governor has violated his oath of office. And there is clearly no requirement that it find liability beyond a reasonable doubt.
No person has a right to hold public office until proof of commission of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a judicial test, not a political one.
================
Frank Askin is Professor of Law and founding director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers School of Law, Newark. His memoir is "Defending Rights: a Life in Law & Politics. He is also listed in "Best Lawyers in America."
Unbelievable........ All I can say is Hopefully if you are ever facing a jury they will uphold the law, even if you mention that you don't think it is practical for them to do so..
WD, do you have this kind of trouble grasping context in all of your endeavors? A jury is REQUIRED to presume innocence in a criminal trial.
The practicality comes in when applying to situations outside a courtroom.
I'll be looking at how good a job you do in presuming innocence.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
45
110
70
43
Popular Days
Feb 22
39
Feb 15
37
Feb 18
36
Mar 7
31
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 45 posts
WhiteDove 110 posts
waysider 70 posts
potato 43 posts
Popular Days
Feb 22 2009
39 posts
Feb 15 2009
37 posts
Feb 18 2009
36 posts
Mar 7 2009
31 posts
Popular Posts
rascal
I assume that YOUR interaction WITH people here at gs where YOU said what your actual experience was in twi was true and factual. I think you are playing word games because you don`tlike being remind
potato
actually, for the record, the claims have been documented. methinks you should go back and read the federal rules of evidence again. at this point, in a court of law, the documented testimony of vpw
waysider
Pure fabrication ,never stated such what I said was I'm not by the way seeing many here posting. You seem to be claiming guilt exactly how many rapes did you witness? I thought so you read an opinion
waysider
Read the context, WD.
It's talking about living, breathing people, not dead cult leaders.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Well Mr. Dove, I guess that would force even the Lord to declare them innocent, huh?
I think that human conscience in public interaction and the Lord are higher courts than the ones your rights refer too.
That dove thing isn't suppose to refer to the spirit of God, is it?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Hehehehe!! ... This coming from a guy who is of a conservative mindset that, among other views, has a rather disparaging point of view re: the United Nations.
... Ohhh but NOW, he invokes their charter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
my emphasis.
Note: NOBODY is on trial here. The right exists such that if, or when, they are before a judge and jury, that they will 1) be presumed innocent, and (2 is
presented all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
No. There is no trial here. Only public castigation. Now if one can find a law prohibiting public castigation of these flagrant scumbags, then maybe it's time to close shop..
see.. times have changed.. these psychos used to able to just go from village to village and set up a bunch of new marks.. now with the internet, people can
compare notes. That's not so bad, is it?
We are actually pretty civil here.. they used to run run snake oil salesmen out of town on a rail, form possees to round them up, and so on..
pretty brutal, once they caught up with them..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yeah.. these "psychos" used to be free to roam from town to town.. finding unwary populace..
now when they go to open shop in a new offshoot.. seems the whole world is at their door asking a few "hard questions"..
don't like it?
tough crap..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Read the context - which is precisely what I said. One must be charged for the presumption to come into play.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence,last I looked guilty of Rape is a penal offence
has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law no proof of guilt according to law has been established
in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. No trial has occured
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Man,
if I was a REAL attorney, I'd wish my opponents had cases this weak.....
"Everyone charged with a penal offence"
There is NO COURTROOM HERE. No one has been CHARGED in a courtroom.
We're not bound by the rules of the court- nor are the rules of the court bound by rules of discussion.
Rape is an offense in a legal sense, but it exists in discussions outside of courtrooms, too.
In fact, we've been discussing it outside of courtrooms for many pages, now.
Surprise, surprise!
"NO TRIAL HAS OCCURRED?"
Who said a trial HAD occurred?
You're the only one comparing this discussion with any kind of "court" in the first place.
So, let's see...
Can't defend his position from a Biblical point of view
(II Corinthians 13:1b "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."),
Can't defend his position from a legal point of view
(the rules of court do not apply to discussion outside of court),
is now resorting to misinterpreting parts of sentences from UN documents he normally spurns.....
You know, some people by now would have admitted they had an indefensible position.
Life continues past admitting that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020617.html
ALLEN IVERSON AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
By SHERRY F. COLB
Monday, Jun. 17, 2002
On Thursday, July 11th, Allen Iverson--the Philadelphia 76ers' All-Star Guard and NBA most valuable player for the 2000-01 season--was charged with three felonies and assorted misdemeanors. Prosecutors say he threw his wife of eleven months, Tawana Iverson, out of their house, naked, and subsequently threatened several men with a gun in his efforts to locate her. One of the men gave an account of what happened in a 911 call in which he suggested that this was the third time Iverson had thrown his wife out of their home.
In response to the charges, Larry Brown and Billy King, the Sixers' coach and general manager, say they firmly support Iverson, reportedly emphasizing that he should be "presumed innocent" unless he is proven guilty.
Such statements, though quite common, misconstrue the role of the presumption of innocence in a criminal case and feed the mistaken belief--shared by many--that the Constitution requires everyone in the United States to presume that an accused criminal is actually innocent until a jury finds otherwise.
"Innocent Until Proven Guilty": Literal Truth?
Recall another celebrity athlete who stood accused of spousal violence. During the year-long circus that was the O.J. Simpson trial, I encountered two odd claims by non-lawyers (and some misguided attorneys) with whom I was acquainted.
The first claim was that Simpson actually was innocent, and would continue to be innocent, unless and until a jury brought in a guilty verdict against him. For all but those who take the radical (one might even say preposterous) view that the truth of an event from the past magically changes when the jury reaches a verdict, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" cannot be taken as an accurate, literal description of reality. O.J. Simpson either did or did not kill Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and nothing that a jury says later can factually alter that historical truth.
No Command for Non-jurors to Suspend Judgment
A second remark I encountered during the year that Marcia Clark and Johnny Cochran became household names, was that we all must suspend judgment about O.J.'s guilt until the jury reaches a verdict, with the implicit correlative that an acquittal requires all people to believe that O.J. was innocent. Neither of these positions has any foundation in law or logic.
An audience watching a television show like The Practice or Law and Order must await the end of the program to find out what "really" happened. That is because the shows are fictional, and what most viewers want to know is whether--in the script--the accused is guilty or not. Because the truth lives only in the imagination of the show's creators, it is appropriate for the audience to delay all conclusions until the end, relegating suspicions and beliefs to the status of guesswork until the dramatic, and often unexpected, denouement.
The Presumption of Innocence in a Criminal Trial
What then is the appropriate role for the presumption of innocence? In a criminal trial, the presumption of innocence is an important constitutional protection for the accused. It means that the jury may only pronounce the defendant guilty if the physical and testimonial evidence presented prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Put differently, the jury must say "not guilty" even when it believes the defendant is guilty and often, it follows, even when the defendant in fact is guilty. Until the evidentiary threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is reached, the judge and the Constitution order the jury to acquit.
The reason for this rule is that a guilty verdict subjects a person to incarceration, the deprivation of freedom that we all cherish and that is guaranteed us under normal circumstances. Though the acquittal of a factually guilty man is unfortunate and costly, it is an inevitable byproduct of a system designed to reduce to close to zero the odds that a factually innocent person will be convicted of a crime.
None of this, however, has anything to do with what the rest of us--the people of the United States who are not serving on a particular criminal defendant's jury--are obligated to think or say.
In the case of Allen Iverson, for example, the man who called 911 to report being threatened at gunpoint is under no obligation to presume Iverson's innocence. Indeed, if he takes the witness stand at trial and falsely recants his story as a favor to a friend (or as a loyal basketball fan), he will be guilty of perjury.
How to Interpret Inconsistent Verdicts
When O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder and subsequently held liable for wrongful death in a civil trial, some people wondered what they were supposed to think. For those who would treat the jury as a font of truth, it was possible to reconcile the verdicts--the evidence might have proved that Simpson probably killed Brown and Goldman, but it was not quite strong enough to eliminate all reasonable doubt. Significantly, however, we need not view the verdicts in that deferential, crabbed way.
It is possible and even reasonable to reach other conclusions. One might conclude either that (a) the criminal jury erred in reaching its verdict; (b) the criminal jury disregarded the judge's instructions to find the defendant guilty if the evidence supported that verdict beyond a reasonable doubt; or © the criminal jury correctly reacted to the evidence admitted at trial, but other evidence that failed to make its way in--including, but not limited to, Simpson's flight from the police, threats of suicide, claims that he loved Nicole "too much," and the prophetic entries in Nicole's own diary--fill the gap between what the jury heard and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Notably, in the civil trial, Simpson was forced to testify and had no recourse to the Fifth Amendment, as he had in his criminal trial. That too could account for the divergence in verdicts. So could the fact that a photo of Simpson in the Bruno Magli shoes he had denied wearing was available at the civil, but not yet at the criminal, trial.
The Right to Think and Speak Logically, Outside the Jury Room
However one views the Simpson and Iverson cases, the Constitution does not dictate what we ought to think or say. Indeed, it protects those thoughts and statements, regardless of their content or viewpoint, under the First Amendment. We therefore need not limit ourselves in the ways the jury is limited--in terms of either the evidence we are allowed to consider, the threshold that evidence must meet before we draw a conclusion, or even our own default presumption.
You can presume that Allan Iverson is guilty as charged, in other words, subject to rebuttal by proof that emerges in the next several months. You can do that, based on logic and the evidence you already know about, along with the fact that thankfully, a relatively small proportion of people charged with crimes are factually innocent.
What you cannot do, consistent with the Constitution, is bring your logical presumption of guilt, your willingness to infer guilt on the basis of inadmissible evidence (such as Iverson's prior bad acts), or your readiness to "convict without a trial" into a jury room. In that room, where twelve people hold the power to deprive a person of her fundamental freedom from physical confinement, the law and the judge's instructions rightly govern our thought processes.
Sherry F. Colb, a FindLaw columnist, is a Professor at Rutgers Law School in Newark and teaches courses in criminal procedure and evidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
The operative word here is "charged" as in "arraigned in a court of law" of a "penal offense" (where guilt would result in a loss of personal freedom). The (only) context (where this is true) is the criminal legal system. It is not even true of the civil legal system, much less the "court" of personal opinion.
I would go so far as to say that in order to avoid being accused, much less charged, one has to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. As such, no one who had been close to the man has said that none of this stuff could have occurred because he was never alone with a woman. And apparently when he was around the WC and HQ drones, he was more open due to the levels of "spiritual maturity" that abounded in those environments. At least with people like me (non WC - so less spiritually mature), he was subtle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I am sure someone has pointed this out as well: TWI did not operate like the legal system when it came to the notion of innocent until proven guilty. There are too many people who report that they were kicked out with little idea of why (beyond the "crime" of asking a question or questioning authority) and certainly no opportunity to defend themselves. Why? Because TWI wasn't required to do so, either legally or ethically. As nice as presumed innocence sounds, sometimes it's not particularly practical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
When people were thrown out of Fellow Laborers, in the middle of the night, hundreds or even thousands of miles from home, we were not allowed to question why or even discuss it amongst ourselves. We were supposed to act like they never existed. There's a sometimes poster here (I won't mention names) who could tell you first hand what a traumatic experience that is. No "presumed innocent", no trial, just toss them out like yesterday's fish heads. And then they used that to let us know that we could be next.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
And they were not declared guilty of criminal activity either as such there was no legal claim to satisfy. Declaring one of guilt of a federal or state crime is just a wee bit different than questioning authority. Not that either should go on ,but the repercussions of the criminal charges don't compare.
Unbelievable........ All I can say is Hopefully if you are ever facing a jury they will uphold the law, even if you mention that you don't think it is practical for them to do so..
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
excellent job of taking the statement out of context in such a predictable manner, rather than recognize it as an example of why presumption of innocence isn't practical outside of the courtroom.
just imagine what twi would be like if they were required to operate under presumption of innocence??? or any business that has employees... or any school... etc. etc. etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Not really her premise was that it was not always practical I disagree I think it is in fact beyond that the law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's not all you CAN say, but it is all you WILL say.
This is STILL neither a jury nor a court of law.
None of us have confused it for that, nor think the rules are the same for discussion and court- except you.
OUTSIDE the court of law, it is not practical to follow the rules of the law.
That's why we're under no requirement to do so.
(Except in your imagination.)
And your premise has been refuted, repeatedly, by people who actually KNOW the law,
who WORK with the law, who TEACH the law.
However, you, the layman who has never STUDIED the law, have concluded you understand the law
better than professors of law, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
WD, do you have this kind of trouble grasping context in all of your endeavors? A jury is REQUIRED to presume innocence in a criminal trial.
The practicality comes in when applying to situations outside a courtroom.
I'll be looking at how good a job you do in presuming innocence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.