"Innocent until proven guilty" is a limitation not often applied in the "court of public opinion".
We do love to gossip. That's fine. Just don't tell us it's news.
The HUGE problem I continue to have with this is they have Talkshows (Hannety, Maddow, O'Reilly, Nancy Grace etc.) who spout wild insane conjecture that they claim 1st A protection under "F of Press. They are NOT the press!
It's a limitation not generally applied in the court of court opinion either. Hence the reason the "innocent" (but probably not) pays bail or sits in jail waiting for a trial. Or ordered held without bail even though they are "presumed innocent"?
poss but they don't hold everyone as far as I understood. I thought they only held those that were considered a real danger (murderer with strong proof?) or a flight risk. bail - dunno, does that actually assume guilt? not sure.
It shows in some cases the courts presume the strong possibility of guilt and act accordingly in the interest of public safety. If we actually presumed innocence, cops wouldn't even carry handcuffs - you wouldn't be arrested until found guilty.
poss, but I think that takes the ideology farther than it was either intended or is pragmatic. If a cop stops someone actually in the process of stabbing someone does that not require a balance between the theory & practice? public opinion rarely
deals with a problem as immediate as that. there is a luxury of time that it had that law enforcement may not.
that might be the argument that the public should try a little harder at the "innocent until proven guilty" assumption given that a
person's life can be easily destroyed by the accusation even if they've never been charged our find innocent. their reputation could be indelibly changed. people have lost the ability to get a job bec of this.
seems pretty sad to me how easily it
is dismissed by the public.
Yeah, I'm not arguing for an end to arrests or jails, just making the point that "innocent until proven guilty" isn't actually a thing. False statements made about someone fall under slander or libel laws and lawsuits, not free speech.
but we both know how infrequently those lawsuits are filed and brought to trial successfully. the system seems to be stacked against those that have been slandered/libelled bec of how strongly we believe in free speech.
it should be a thing since it's something held up as one of the great pillars of our society.
Yes especially in the big cases like OJ ( guilty), Jodi Arias (guilty) and Casey Anthony(guilty). In all of these cases most of the public had a guilty opinion Unfortunately in the case of mother of the year, only the idiots of Pinnelas Cty
Disagreed with the whole country and let her go.
So very true! And I am guilty of this too.
It's a fact!
This user is currently being ignored
But you are choosing to make a decision of guilt based on incomplete information. You could easily do the right thing and wait for an informed decision.