Does 'innocent until proven guilty' apply all the time?

Send me your movie news, topics, articles and questions here:

Intro Song: Jim Yosef - Link [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.

[gamingguruk]

Moralistic/philosophical standards don't end where the law ends.

[lenniegodber]

"Does 'innocent until proven guilty' apply all the time?"
Not if you are a man
Now the whiff of an accusation can end your career and ruin your reputation regardless of the validity of the claims made against you
Its not trial by jury anymore its trial by social media

[saurmandersauce]

Thanks for saying “if he is innocent.” I think it’s important to approach a case like this with no bias on whether he is guilty or innocent.

[lucofparis]

Even more relevant is the fact the "innocent until proven guilty" principle is based on scientific method. There's no such thing as a relevant subjective judgement of this principle. Either they can present solid arguments against it, or they have to recognize it's the best principle we were able to come up with.

[austin]

.My question is, if someone has a bench trial in criminal court and is found guilty, then later the same judge says says "I am not going to send the defendant to prison because for all I know he might be innocent" is that a violation of due process because due process implies presumption of Innocence which implies the matter(charge against the defendant) must be proven to be true(meaning every aspect of guilt is proven) to the fact finder (who in this case is the judge) the precedent for which was first set 1895 Coffin v. United States(in Coffin v. US the trier of fact was a jury that was misled into presuming that the fact that the defendant was indicted is evidence of guilt. The conclusion of this appeal made it clear that in every criminal case a uniform statement, which is sometimes referred to as "the judges charge to the jury"  which is the instructions given to a jury to clarify, courtroom terms that have been used, each aspect of the law that must have been proven to have been violated by the defendant, and most importantly that at the conclusion of the trial if the evidence provided during the trial did not prove to the jury that the defendant is guilty of violating every aspect of the charge the jury must find the defendant not guilty and acquit him)
That is the question that led me here. It isn't a topic that i can find anyone with knowledge of the law, and/or constitution, reasonably discussing. Especially when the trier of fact is a judge who should not need to be reminded of "judge's charge to the jury" And that is probably because it sounds like (at least to me) a stupid scenario that would "never happen in a courtroom of the most sophisticated and just legal system in the world" aka the "US Criminal Justice System" but it literally does. It must be a rare circumstance that happens because I have only seen one case like it and I can't find any justification for a judge to believe that when he is the trier of fact that he is not subject to the same charge he would normally place on the jury when a jury is the trier of fact. If anyone can lead me to any discussions or case law on a matter such as this or would like to discuss this further please send some information my way. Thanks

[austin]

Now if a accusation arises and is reported to police but no charges are made the case status is "open pending further investigation." Almost every form of investigation department has the policy not to disclose or discuss open investigations. The violation of that policy can result in a lawsuit against the agency responsible for the investigation. But only if the policy is provable to have been violated. It is still not a matter of "Innocence till proven guilty"

[telepathicswan]

Clearly not in America 2018! or the U.K for that matter!

[AndroidCovenant]

Hey Brendan!
1. If I'm in a scenario where I'm offered a chance to apply for an important job that requires a person of high moral standards, I would first assess my blind spots. If I've got a history of heavy drinking and trash posting in my yearbook, etc. I wouldn't even consider applying. I would just be happy with what I have or applied for a different job that doesn't require my name to be publicized at the national level. BK comes off as entitled and so full of himself that he never stopped to think about his blind spots
2. If I did apply and the false allegations came up then, yes, I would fight tooth and nail to prove my innocence and suitability for the job. However, I wouldn't be belligerent towards the senators and would myself push for a thorough investigation into all the allegations to clear my name. I'll admit that people's presumption of my guilt would make me very uncomfortable. Same if I was actually guilty
3. I doubt that 'presumption of innocence until proven guilty' as a moral principle pre-dates the courts or the justice system. Moral principles evolve as we evolve in our thinking as human beings. There was a time when homosexuality was immoral. Today there is scientific evidence for it being a natural occurrence. Today hunting and eating meat is viewed as OK. Tomorrow it may be immoral. You could argue that the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle adopted by the courts is a good precedent for society as a whole to adopt as a moral principle going forward. Another good one to adopt could be 'treat women with respect' so she doesn't end up emotionally scarred for the rest of her life
4. Yesterday, I read that 650 law professors signed a statement to present to the senate saying that BK was unfit for a seat on the SC as he does not have the right temperament for the job. He had a history of heavy drinking and presented his background inaccurately under oath. BK's not fighting this fight because of courage or virtue. He's doing so because he wants the position and he wants power. He's least bothered about clearing his name or he would have requested the investigation himself
5. I agree that Ford is being treated as a political pawn. And being the well-educated psychology professor that she is, I'm sure she's aware of this too

[atomicsquid]

Kavanaugh was lucky that they didn't wheel in a cart of stones during the hearing. Some of those Senators likely know what pressing was and I wouldn't be surprised to find were present the last time it was employed.

[NiteStorm]

For men it's guilty until proven innocent

[domino_dadmp]

Thanks for the video and thanks for sharing this moral truth.

[grimlizard]

Part of the reasons for innocence until proven guilty is because it is impossible to prove a negative. For example, you cannot prove that something does not exist or cannot (or has not) happened. It's impossible. To prove this, one needs infinite knowledge of all things at the same time, which of course no human possesses. But, it is possible to show, positively, that something is or did happen. Evidence can be shown for that. But one cannot prove that one did not do something. How do you demonstrate negative evidence???

[strangebrw]

Whether you tolerate it or not has no influence on if you get the job or not, its not your choice if they have concerns because of allegations. Serious concern is more than enough to dismiss a candidate. In many areas he would be presumed guilty based on his race, regardless if there are any valid allegations. Being white, male and privileged gives a pedestal to be able to say its unfair or a witchhunt, if the candidate was any other demographic, they wouldnt even be in consideration by now. And its sickening how many seem to want to argue for this because "you cant let the left win" even if it means supporting complete scum. And only scumbags support other scumbags. The righteousness of the conservative male has now hit critical mass.

[austin]

Look at it this way in the US the fith amendment states a defendant is not required to testify against himself. So if you are a defendant and do not wish to speak under oath in a courtroom you say "I decline to answer and under the advice of council i take the 5th amendment." But that right does not apply to anyone who is not the defendant. So from your wrong point of view because I do not like answering a bunch of question I could go into a job interview with a piece of paper that just say "I plea the 5th" and because it is moralistic to allow people who wish to remain silent to do so, and there is a amendment that says I can do that in a set of specific circumstances that do not apply to this situation, at all, then if I do not get hired (probably for the obvious reasons of the company not being able to take the risk of hiring me) do you think i have any legal reason to complain? Of course not because because all legal rights come with specific circumstances and the circumstances of the 5th amendment did not apply. Kinda a duh thing don't you think. Thanks for 7 min of junk.

[adamsmith]

Maybe the job interview is a bad analogy because no one owes you a job. Even a false allegation might be a liability the company can't afford. They could presume you were innocent and still decide to give the job to someone else.

In public opinion though, it doesn't matter who has the burden of proof (accused or accuser) because people don't base their beliefs on proofs, they just believe what they want to be true.

[austin]

Almost every single thing you said is wrong. 1 "due process of LAW" aka the presumption of Innocence only applies in CRIMINAL legal proceedings. in civil law the standard is much lower. To be clear I agree with your OPINIONS about people behaving as presumption of Innocence should be a moral value we seek to up hold. And if a accusation is false it should be fought in a legal way. And people do bring up accusation others have made, even if they are slanderous, to smear the reputation of others for political, social, and various other reasons. But those are OPINIONS, not base on legal FACTS. If you can not site any case law or ruling that sets the precedent in support of your morality being the current law of the land. Then you just tried (and probably succeeded) to convince people your opinion on morality is supported by law. In the matter of presumption of Innocence and how it applies out side of a criminal court, except for specific special circumstances, 9/10 times you are wrong. Even if a cival judge agrees with you there is no legal requirement for due process of law aka presumption of Innocence when life or liberty is not going to be imposed upon by a government. (Aka criminal proceedings) have a nice day. Feel free to site specific laws or case law when you want to teach people about it.