If you are innocent until proven guilty, why are you handcuffed prior to a verdict?
The presumption of innocence applies in determining guilt or innocence in a criminal trial. The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s basically all there is to the presumption of innocence.Different stages of the criminal justice system have different standards. A police officer has to have reasonable and probable grounds to believe a person has committed a crime to be able to arrest them. (Different countries have different expressions. I think “probable cause” is used in the US.)When you see a prisoner in handcuffs at trial, that’s the result of the bail process, sometimes called Judicial Interim Release. Here in Canada, the presumption is that an accused person can be released on bail pending the outcome of the case. If the prosecution can show, on a balance of probabilities that the accused either will not attend court, or will likely commit further offences, if he is released, then the judge will order him detained, held without bail until his case is resolved.Okay, so he’s been arrested, denied bail, and now it’s his trial, and he’s brought to court. Why the shackles? That’s a decision of the sheriffs, who are in charge of security in the courtroom. They make an assessment, and they make that decision. Sometimes I have seen defence counsel ask to have their client unshackled. The judge makes that ruling, though they usually defer to the sheriffs. If he is unshackled, they will sometimes bring an extra sheriff into the courtroom.In Canada, it’s pretty rare, in my experience. Even prisoners are generally respectful of the court. I’ve only ever seen somebody act up maybe twice in 21 years, and that was at the bail hearing stage, not at trial.
In America you are innocent until proven guilty....?
In English speaking countries, we use the common law as the basis of our legal system. In its origins, the Norman French occupied England, which was largely unsettled and not at all well policed. So it became relatively easy to have someone charged with a crime, since witnesses were rare. Juries were used to decide guilt and the facts of the case because the Normans did not speak the vernacular very well. Over time, the burden of proof was placed upon the accuser, later the Crown. It has been that way in our system for nearly a eight hundred years. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law The origins of law in France, Italy, Spain and a few other places, they follow what is called "civil law," which also includes criminal law. The historical antecedents of that system are the Code Justinian, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civil... church law, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law the customary law of the place, and the Code Napoleon, which was a re-codification of existing law. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_code Under that system, it is the duty of the state to investigate crimes and to only bring charges if there is sufficient evidence to justify them. If accused, the defendant has the duty to try to show the state where it is was wrong in its investigation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof My preference is in favor of our system, but in many places in Europe they have gotten by with the other system. I believe that the difference between the two systems reflects the continental acceptance of authority. English speaking people have historically had weaker governments, caused largely by a greater skepticism concerning government.
Why do Americans use the mantra "Innocent Until Proven Guilty", when a "suspect" can sit in jail for years waiting for an arraignment, and another year or so waiting to go to court to determine whether they are innocent or guilty?
In the UK and many other countries. It is upon the convicted to PROVE their innocent of a crime. This was the mantra used back before the US Revolution for its independence. Someone would house a rebel and the Queen’s army would kill the family many times the family would no know the person they helped was a rebel. Many mis carriages of justice would take place with this idea of Guilty until proven Innocent.So In America they established the Mantra that you are innocent until the Government can prove you are guilty. This puts the burden on the prosecution to GET IT RIGHT before condemning a person to Death as an example. You can not unDEAD someone falsely convicted and executed.Now the UK may have some special way to do this but they have not shared that method with the USA as to how to resurrect the dead. Also the last Man that was raised from the dead has not returned to reveal how he did it.So to error on the side of caution we grant a person the idea of being innocent until a crime can be proven instead of fitting a crime to a suspect and the suspect has to prove innocent.Also In the USA we respect the Right to keep your mouth shut (Remain Silent) when being interrogated by the Police. Where in the UK it is dimmly viewed upon and present in court as a sign of guilt if you do not talk to the officer even if you wish to remain silent and said talking would exonerate you anyway.
How are you innocent until proven guilty if you are jailed while waiting for trial?
Every government system in our so-called “free world” makes rules and laws that are skewed in their favor. Even “Democracy” is like a David Copperfield trick. Making people believe that we live in a “free and open Democracy” is the key to keeping the people from revolting. Making them think that they have a say in what’s going on in their lives, even though in reality it’s all just a mirage. If we lived in a true Democracy, with technology as it is today we would all be able to have the option to vote on EVERYTHING! Technically it’s possible..and that would be a true democracy…yet they don’t do that. They stick to the old system, giving us just enough power to elect someone who makes your vote for you on EVERYTHING. Representative, they call them. Sure the system is a little bit better than it might be in Irak or Somalia, so people are generally ok with it. But it’s not a democracy.Same thing with innocent until proven guilty. That’s too risky for the government. Sure they want the people to believe in that facade or there would be anarchy, and just like in advertising or telling a lie…if you hear something enough or tell the same lie enough times, you start believing that it’s true. This simple trick of manipulation has been used by governments all over the western world and elsewhere. People generally believe that they are innocent until proven guilty until they are thrown in jail and have to wait there without bail for 2 years while the government gathers the evidence that they should have already had to be able to make you spend one day in jail in the first place.We as citizens don’t really have as many rights, but if we all saw that to be true, the governments would have serious problems on their hands. They would lose their precious control over us.The justice system in the U.S. and in most other places in the world is not fair at all for regular citizens, and while you should be innocent until proven guilty, you really aren't, because the government would have to do way too much work and have to come up with real and actual evidence in order to prosecute people. They don’t have time for that shit. The people want blood, and the politicians need a scapegoat fast before the people come for theirs.
Is an accused person guilty until proven innocent in France?
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Napolean I introduced a system of justice in France in 1800AD that has spread throughout continental Europe and beyond. It is described as an inquisitorial or investigative system rather than an adversarial system, though prosecutors, defendants and victims are all entitled to representation. http://www.unjustjustice.org.au/the-solu... The "Napoleonic Code," which continues in France and other countries conquered by France, hold that the accused is guilty until proven innocent (thus, the point of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables). This was a re-working of previous monarchical attitudes toward law enforcement (and as Napoleon was emperor, one isn't surprised.) Suspects in the American judicial system have a presumption of innocence, or being innocent until proven guilty. Other countries, such as France, maintain protections of a suspect and ensure a fair trail but use a presumption of guilt until proven innocent. http://www.ehow.com/info_8472464_moral-e...
Are you really Innocent until proven guilty in the US?
The whole concept is more of a prosecutorial direction. When America was formed, most other countries had a "guilty until proven innocent" and it was on the accused to prove they didn't do it. That's just not right and results in miscarriages of justice, so we say that the prosecution is responsible for proving someone is guilty. In England, as the story goes, the government felt it was better for 10 innocent people to be jailed than for one guilty person to go free. We chose to say it is better for 10 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be jailed. You cannot arrest someone, or hold them, without pretty strong or circumstantial evidence of guilt. Then, we have laws that say you can, for example, hold someone for 24 hours without being arrested (which usually has to be approved by a judge) or they have to be held without bail if the chances are high that they can or will run. Citizens have a right to a speedy trial, so they can't be held for years waiting for trial, but we can hold them with enough evidence in order to protect society. If a judge thinks the charges fit the alleged crime, they will be held. Someone who happened to be walking down a street and looks like someone who committed a crime, but for whom there was no physical evidence, may be let out on bail. Someone in a clock tower who shot people and was wrestled to the ground by cops probably won't. It all depends on the situation and the evidence. The bail has to be high, or everyone would run - you get it back when you show up for court.
Innocent until proven guilty?
Before certain atheists return from this question to tell all the Christians about how "irrational" or "illogical" their faith is, consider this: The American system of justice has been upheld and working relatively very well for many, many years. This system was based on the ideas of the nation, and in the fairness of it is approved by millions. If the arguments poseted on Y!A were trial on the existence of God, your evidence would be beyond "reasonable doubt." I'm sure many of you atheists are going to dismiss this as ridiculous, but let's just continue examining this metaphor... The atheists on Y!A attacking the existence of God would be the prosecutors, and the Christians arguing rebuttles and that God exists would be the defense. The PROSECUTOR in a court case must provide THEIR PROOF against the innocence (or in this case, existance) of the defense. In other words, Christians aren't the ones who must do the proving. Because in the court system, someone is innocent until proven guilty. The jurors (or in this case, agnostics or onlookers in Y!A) must enter the courtroom with faith (that's right folks, I used that word) in the innocence of the defender. If we follow this logic, we then can examine all evidence. The defense (Christians) bring in witnesses. People who claim to have a PERSONAL experience involving God. And in the justice system, witness testimonies- guess what?- count for something! All a witness must do is testify, and that is taken as EVIDENCE. The Christians also can testify their faith in God, also a piece of evidence. The atheists can attack the creationist story with evolution: clear evidence against it. However, not all Christians are creationists. They cannot provide witnesses, because their "witnesses" would not believe in God and thus could not have a personal experience. All atheists may do is pick out little bits of evidence they think is skeptical, or attack creationists. If this were a court case, the burden of proof would lie on YOU.
Why do we say innocent until proven guilty?
Why does our society and system say that an inmate in jail waiting for trial is "innocent until proven guilty." That has to be the most retarded way of thinking. If a person would have any chance of being innocent and have no reason at all to say a person is guilty then it would be impossible to hold them in jail....There has to be a good reason and evidence why a police officer would arrest a person and bring them to jail and the pre-trial would also say that person needs to be held in jail. You cannot do that to a 100% innocent person. Can it happen? yes, but not so often and rare enough that we should use the phrase "innocent" to describe a jail inmate. Innocent people do not form jail gangs. Innocent people are not violent in jail. Innocent people do not disobey rules. Innocent people do not threaten or intimidate others. All of which describe most jail inmates. You have to be an idiot to call them "innocent" They are a criminal just by their behavior inside the jail system. Even if an inamte is well behaved inside jail. How can someone such as person who just killed someone, like a cop killer be called "innocent until proven guilty". The person is guilty before he/she even gets to jail. Yes, we need to use the court system to figure out how guilty and what type of sentence the inmate should get, but they are NEVER INNOCENT. So please excuse my anger, but can we Americans in the U.S. stop being retarded and stop calling people like gang bangers, cop killers, rapists, etc as "innocent" and say they should have the rights of an innocent person. So let's please get it correct. If there is a reason for the police to go through all the trouble to risk their lives, arrest you, take you to jail, then you obviously are "GUILTY until proven innocent", because that is exactly what is happening if you are an inmate in jail. You are being held in a jail because you are assumed to be a guilty criminal until you can prove your innocence in court or have crooked lawyer or judge to set you free even if you are guilty which is basically how our retarded criminal court system works.