Talk:Presumption of innocence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Why? 2 NPOV 3 Presumption of innocence does not apply to those caught in the criminal act 4 POV first sentence 5 Presumption of Guilt 6 Should not be limited to the law. 7 Distinction between law and ethics 8 Presumption of guilt

[edit] Why?

This might sound too obvious to include, but I think it's important. Why is presumption of innocence important as a basic human right? It's clear that under presumption of guilt, any person could be accused of any action that they don't have evidence to show that they did not commit, but on the other hand presumption of innocence necessarily lets guilty parties through the cracks on occasion, who might then harm the innocent. Is the idea that the power of the state is more dangerous and so more necessary to limit? Deco 05:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, history has shown that the power of the state will be abused if given the opportunity. Presumptions of innocence or guilt are not panaceas - innocent people can been convicted under either system. When an innocent person is convicted of a crime, it means a guilty person remains free. Thus it is not accurate to claim that 'presumption of guilt' prevents the guilty from escaping justice. There's also the matter of false alibis. Update: I read that i should sign comments, so here: 206.172.127.174 20:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Please qualify the statements in the article to make them more accurate. Deco 23:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Very well, sentence claiming 'marked advantage' removed.216.208.211.85 04:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't suggesting removing it — just a more balanced discussion of the possible advantages of a system based on presumption of guilt, and why we don't consider those advantages sufficient. Deco 20:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see possible advantages of presumption of guilt. This includes the claim that it rarely allows criminals to escape justice.

At best POG is a contradiction in terms (ie. if we require the prosecution to present evidence beyond the lack of an alibi for the accused.)216.208.211.58 21:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article claims presumption of innocence is a good thing, and criticizes governments without it. That is POV. Superm401 | Talk 02:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, would you say that claiming right to life is a good thing (and maybe criticizing governments that don't respect it) is POV? I would not. If you don't have presumption of innocence, you can be accused (and be automatically found guilty) of crimes. The next step is death penalty. Voilá! You've been stripped of your right to life through such an insignificant thing as the presumption of innocence. I'm removing the NPOV template. Habbit 10:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly most countries of the world do not have execution any more, only inprisonment. Thus the right of the victims to live overwhelms the right of the murderers to tweak themselves out of prosecution. Because of the very long life expectancy in developed countries (77 for males, 84 for women) the most significant issue of everyday life has become murder. Errenus inprisonment can always be righted in retro-spective (e.g. 250k dollars / year behind the bars) but an axeman killing another girl after being freed on technicalities cannot be undone, because no one can resurrect her. Thus to keep the institution of "Presumption of Innocence" for capital cases actually infringes on the right of the murdered and those who will be murdered when the axeman remains at large.

Sorrowfully EN.wikipedia.org (EN as in english language) is being treated as US.wikipedia.org, because the numerically superior gun-touting yankee can force their ideology into the system. Their love of violence and shotgun culture permeates many wikipedia articles. They think murders are an important boosting aspect of the economy (CourtTV, Hollywood thrillers big $ at box office, controlling the amount of negro population in Washington D.C.) and yankee measure everything with money. So they make laws that encourage murder. [anon IP]

Actually, I've noticed that it's become a soapbox for lunatics. Kade 04:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The lunacy isn't so bad as long as they keep it to the talk pages. Deco 05:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes Superm401, it is a point of view, a neutral point of view. After all, everything has to have a reference point. For presumption of innocence, our reference, or point of view on the matter, is vast experience in legal precedent from the ancient world. Every article has a POV, it is the NPOV that must be adhered to for Wiki to work.

Now since I may deemed a Yankee by Sorrowfully, I feel compelled to respond to such ignorant nonsense. Most Americans do not own guns. In fact, per capita Canadians own more guns than Americans do, which the queen is still head of state over. How bloody quaint. But I guess that's what we Americans can expact for saving your collective arse from the Nazis. Most Americans do not love violence. No one think murders are an important boosting aspect of the economy. And not everything is measured with money. But hey, we did learn a great deal from the British Empire that treated its colonists so callously to begin with. Jcchat66 16:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presumption of innocence does not apply to those caught in the criminal act

>Presumption of innocence is an essential right that the accused enjoys in >criminal trials in all countries respecting human rights. It states that >the accused is presumed to be innocent until it has been declared guilty by a court.

Of course this is not fully true. A person who has been caught in the act (e.g. Reagan's shooter was subdued in situ in mere seconds) does not have presumption of innocence, because him/her doing the crime is undeniable. Maybe he is ruled not guilty eventually (due to e.g. insanity) but it does not make him innocent, because not guilty is not equal to innocence.

You're contrasting different definitions of innocence. A person can commit an act and still be considered innocent as long as they were not responsible for their actions, due for example to coercion or the inability to judge right and wrong. Even if there is overwhelming evidence, the person is still presumed innocent in the sense that although the action is easily proven, it has not been proven that the action was committed intentionally by a person in a rational state of mind. Deco 23:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Being caught in the act simply invalidates one form of defense for Counsel. Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The Prosecution still had to prove that Hinckley had actual rational malice on the brain as per the statute's reading. They failed to do this. In the court of public OPINION, yes, the person is guilty as all hell, but the Law is intentionally divorced from public opinion. Kade 04:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV first sentence

I didn't read this article completely, but the very first sentence is POV. It states "Presumption of innocence is an essential right that the accused enjoys in criminal trials in all countries respecting human rights.". While this is my POV, and most of us probably share it, it *is* a POV. However, I do not know enough about the subject to NPOV it and keep it factually accurate. There was already an NPOV tag on a section in the middle, so I moved it to the top. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 15:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to deal with this based on some common sense reasoning (although like most people I don't actually support presumption of guilt.) Deco 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Presumption of Guilt

In the UK there is certain exception(s) to the presumption of innocence; one is where a drunk driver is involved in an accident, I believe there are others. I do not know where I can validate that rule so I haven't put it on the main page.

The article is rediculous as this "rule" no longer functions anywhere, especially the United States. --DanielCD 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should not be limited to the law.

I think the confusion lies in that this subject has been narrowed to the scope of the law. It seems reasonable to assume that this concept is essential to civility and cooperation as well, for one cannot go around accusing people of anything unless they have some kind of proof. You cannot accuse someone of anything in civil society without being able to back it up, or you run the risk of making people angry and losing credibility. That holds true for any culture and any time period. For people to cooperate, they must assume they are telling the truth, within reason at least. If we go around assuming everyone is lying, how is anything going to get done at all? Presumtion of innocence is the same as presumtion that the accused is telling the truth. This is why presumption of innocence should be deemed a fundamental right for everyone, without exception. I would move to even call it self-evident. But this should definately be researched more. Jcchat66 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article misses an important point, and that is that "preseumption of innocence" really has meaning in only one place - inside a courtroom. If you are walking down the street, the "presumption of innocence" conveys nothing on you. You can be arrested for a crime and brought to trial; your "preseumption of innocence" gives you no rights until you are inside the courtroom. If a newspaper says that you have committed a crime, you have no recourse against it based on your "presumption of innocence" (you may win a libel case, but that's based on different principles having nothing to do with "presumption of innocence"). The best that the article can do on this point is talk about "journalistic ethics" (some would suggest that's an oxymoron), but again, even if a journalist violates his/her code of ethics, that doesn't give anyone a right to recover against the journalist.

(Above unsigned)

Presumption of innocence protects people on many different levels, not just the court room. A police officer must have probably cause before he can arrest you on the street, precisely because of this. Your home cannot be searched or seized without due process of law, another right of presumtion of innocence. Otherwise a court order would not be necessary.

As far as the media is concerned, they have often sheltered themselves behind freedom of speach, even though freedom of speach has nothing to do with slander or libel. Those are still very much criminal offenses, and the media loses in court often because of it. Otherwise a person's reputation could be scared for life from a false accusation by the media. A person's reputation is very important for every day life, for holding key jobs, public trust, etc. and is an exceedingly important civil issue. If you research libel and slander you will find numerous defenses for one's reputation, as it must be assumed that the person is innocent of slander or libel if the accuser cannot prove their claim. How often this is enforced, or if the media has lost any trials for libel, would be another subject indeed. Regardless of this however, innocent until proven guilty is necessary for every day social civility. Please try your best to prove otherwise. Below is an real-life example:

A car stopped unexpectedly in front of me when I was driving a large truck, forcing me to brake hard and also come to an unexpected stop. The car behind me skidded and nearly hit me. By this time the car in front of me was long gone, and the car behind me raced around me to pass. The car behind me honked theor horn and the passenger screamed at me angrilly, but they ASSUMED I had stopped for no reason, because they had not seen the car in front of me.

This is a social problem for lack of a major self-evident truth. The car behind me should not have assumed anything to keep the peace, but instead they became hostile. Could this also be part of the reason road rage has increased substnatially in America in the last decade? The concept of presumption of innocence has been lost on most people, and therefore we jump to conclusions and point fingers without knowing the facts first. This is obviously bad on many social levels.

Limited to the court room? Absolutely not. Jcchat66 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distinction between law and ethics

Unless I receive any objections, I propose to delete the paragraph "Distinction between law ans ethics" from the main article. I've known enough lawyers and researched enough legal issues to know this is completely untrue. Almost all laws have evolved from ethical and moral points of view. Murder and theft remain universally unethical and unlawful despite distinctions between law and ethics. Most laws require moral or ethical standing to be valid at all. Some states in America give custody of children to the mother in divorce because of strictly moral points of view, and may have gone too far using ethics to establish law. But as far as murder and rape are concerned, ethics and law are clearly indivisble. Jcchat66 16:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presumption of guilt

The article mentions presumption of guilt For Criminal Law. Does it not apply in civil? Could this be elucidated? Further there is an issue of quazi criminal law which seems very murky and prone to abuse. I have seen and been disturbed by presumption of guilt in USA county (Miami-Dade)administrative courts ( quazi criminal ). A ticket is issued to which one must "appeal" to an administrative hearing officer (who may have no legal training or skill). ( Is this legal?) If the A.H.O rejects the 'appeal' the defendant must appeal to a real court ( can't remember if it's circuit still, it may have been transferred to county court), the A.H.O.s seem to routinely find guilt to place the burdon and expense of a proper trial on the defendant (as in kill the defendant and let god decide in death cases). This is a case I recently saw: In a hearing a homeowner was charged with parking a commercial vehicle for more than the county code allowed 1 hr. The evidence was that there was a complaint on a monday and when the code enforcement officer arrived aprox 24 hrs later he saw a commercical vehicle at the house. He ticketed it $500. The owner was renting a parking space 3 miles away at a cost of $130/mo and stated he had parked there that night. Homeowner couldn't prove it, guilty! One A.H.O. claimed to be a special master, but such claim seems innacurate. This is a rhetorical or pedagogic question in response to some notes below: if the executive is allowed the presumption of guilt what is the likely and historical outcome? I will discuss it if such discussion is wanted. Presumption of innocence is a good and NPOV in light of the alternatives. It makes the executive work at it's proper role instead of merely "rounding up the usual suspects", the socially disadvantaged. Don't forget, " every cop is a criminal..." until proven innocent. Wblakesx 20:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)wblakesx

When you are issued a ticket by a police officer you can either pay the fine or contest it in court. Presumption of innocence does not prevent a judge from taking the word of a police officer over that of an ordinary citizen. The article does mention this: Courts may prefer the testimonies of persons of certain class, status, ethnicity, gender, or political standing over those of others, regardless of actual circumstances. Pendragon39 03:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pendragon. In this jurisdiction a traffic ticket leads to a pretrial hearing and an actual trial is available if one wants to contest the case. There is a rebutable presumption that the police officer will give accurate testimony based upon the presumption that he has no reason to misrepresent the truth ( of course Cops often get things very wrong for one reason or another ). How this weighs against the presumption of the defendant's innocence I am quite unsure, but the officer may have a reputation for overstepping the law or be shown to be prone to error. Further there are attorneys available at reasonable costs . Code enforcement is All under the Executive and a certain cosiness exists between extremely agressive and or negligent enforcers and hearing officers. It should be noted that this situation seems to have gotten really bad after the city bankrupted itself and the enforing agency reported that it had 'discovered new methods of raising revenue'.Wblakesx 20:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)wblakesx

Hi :) What you describe sounds like collusion. Collusion between police, their employers and judges. In such situations, the presumption of innocence remains intact only in theory. A more malicious example can be found in the movie To Kill a Mockingbird. A more recent example are American politicians demanding denial of rights for terrorists. In theory alleged terrorists are presumed innocent until proven guilty through evidence. Omit 'alleged' and you have presumption of guilt (in theory). Replace evidence with supposition and you will have it in practice. Pendragon39 00:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pendragon. Yes, well put. The next conclusion might be conspiracy... to violate civil rights ? I have a feeling that if one fights to real appeals courts the agency will back down to prevent a record ( precedence too) from being made. That theoretically one could sue for tort but at great expense and little chance of altering the behavior, it's simply too profitable politically and monitarily.- wblakesx

I live in Canada and have heard stories about law enforcement in the United States. There was a documentary about highway police targeting out-of-state drivers and Canadians. It was basically a scheme to 'supplement' the county budget. Is it true that some of your police forces are managed through private companies? It should be noted that civil cases have a lower burdon of proof than criminal cases. Thus it is easier to push dubious infractions and win them by default. Pendragon39 03:43, 2 October 2006 (UT)]

There are still juridictions that make a substantial amout of money from such ticketing, or otherwise where the police have little to do but make a show to typically rich areas. I haven't heard of private police ( private gaurds yes ) but South Miami apparently has a privatized litigation section in it's city attorny's office.

For civil cases burdon of proof is preponderance of the evidence, but in a civil case between private litigants there would still be a presumption of defendants innocence, no? I suspect that many towns and munipalities are making up for lost federal money by issuing dubious "infraction" citations; what surprised me was the tenacity with which the code enforcers fought for convictions where the complaint was bald on it's face. I suspect moral is low or non existent.

Yes, presumption of innocence exists, although a police officer's word might be enough if a defendant cannot present any evidence beyond a verbal denial. I assume though, that the cases you are referring to involve additional factors and evidence? A vigorous prosecution might indicate a need to protect the reputations of traffic cops, and by extension, the revenue stream.

There are so many speeders where I live, complaints are mostly about the police not enforcing the law often enough. I regularily see drivers running stop signs with impunity.

Consider photo radar speed traps. In that system, radar tells the camera to take a picture of the offender's license plate, from which an address is obtained and a fine issued and sent through the mail. Guilty? Probably, yet you still have the right to contest the ticket. Pendragon39 00:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

'Tis odd that the presumption is less favourable at one's homestead than on the public streets. As for speeding, it seems that law is barely enforced. Strange days. With the 'broken windows' ' school of law enforcement', and mandatory minimum sentances, executive and judicial discretion seem greatly weakened. Can we have a legal system without discretion?

Would we want a legal system without discretion? Mandatory minimums were introduced because of a perception of leniency towards offenders and repeat offenders. Pendragon39 22:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There exist too many factors when it comes to traffic statutes, especially when it comes to presumption of innocence. In the common law there would be no traffic laws at all, because the common law is victim-based. No victim no crime. Traffic rules would merely help discover who was at fault when a crime (fatality, property damage etc.) occured. Insurance would not be necessary because a fatality would be dealt with harshly, and people would be fully responsible for the property damage. Under such conditions people would drive infinately more carefully, which was the intent of common law in the first place for any activity of life. Tread carefully and don't make victims. Insurance is actually buying out of accountability, and part of the reason why a cops word is taken over a citizen ... because that citizen actually paid someone else to be responsible for their own actions. The fine print of the legal code states this in many, many more words.

Too many of us allowed mandatory insurance, allowed ourselves to be licensed, and registered, without protest from the early days when cars were invented. Taking the word of a police officer over a citizen is de facto presumption of guilt, for it puts the burden of proof on the citizen. But most of us long ago gave up that right because too few people complain and are more interested in football. Now you reap what you sow. Jcchat66 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In Quebec we have Napoleonic Law (as opposed to English Common Law in the rest of Canada and US). Auto insurance is designed to protect drivers from liability in case of an accident. Reckless behavior is another story. Your premiums will go up. And no matter the premiums, it does not protect someone from having to pay a traffic fine!

Some drivers don't bother with insurance or registration. They continue to drive and hope the police don't run their plates. Would this make them ironically safer drivers?

Preferring the testimony of one class of people over another is normal human behavior. It happens all the time, including murder trials. Human beings are inherently biased. The presumption of innocence cannot always override bias. Pendragon39 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Pendragon39 question, would uninsured drivers be safer? Of course! They have much more to loose than insured drivers do. Before I turned 25 I drive without insurance because I could not afford to $200 a month penalty for being under 25 years old. Never had any tickets or accidents and I drove with intrepid perfection. As did my friends who could not afford it either, it was actually quite common, and probably still is. Of course it does not matter for some, who would be bad drivers no matter what. The wealthy and upper middle class are usually the worst offenders when it comes to traffic laws, for they have little to lose when their insurance and lawyers will keep them on the streets, no matter how many DWI's or speeding tickets they have. Even if they do loose their license they can afford a limo. Not so with the rest of the common people.

And the other remark is just simply horrid, "Preferring the testimony of one class of people over another is normal numan behavior." So are many other human behaviors, does that justify them? Absolutely not. The American, French, and even Communist Revolutionss were all attempts, with various success, to remove this horribly aristocratic mentality. Equality under the law would be completely invalidated by accepting the testimony of aristocrats (in modern usage; the wealty, politicians, socialites, etc) over the common people. Democracy is severely deminished as well, if not impossible. The Greeks knew this and struggled with it for centuries, as we struggle with it today. Accepting the testimony of a cop (who is not a different social class anyway) over a defendant is normal numan behavior only so long as we all accept this as normal. Slavery was once considered normal too for thousands of years, perpertrated by aristocracies, but finally the tide has been turned. A strict adherence to presumption of innocence is not perfect, but it goes a long way in assuring that another Roman Empire is not born, or millions are condemned to concentration camps. Jcchat66 18:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold yer horses! I'm not trying to justify inequality, elitism, racism, sexism or any form of discrimination. Humans always fall short of the ideals they claim to follow. This is the norm. Calling it normal human behavior may be cynical, but that don't mean I justify it.

Presumption of innocence is an ideal we should follow, but we know that isn't always what we do in practice. Being framed by the police for a speeding ticket is one end of the short stick - what about Guantanamo Bay? Your leaders claim it is necessary because it is not a normal situation they find ourselves in. Is that justification enough?

I wouldn't put much trust in the facade of civility that exists in developed countries. As long as we feel safe in our homes, eating three meals a day, our bills getting paid, we can afford to have and appreciate ideals like presumption of innocence and democracy. But I believe those ideals would quickly go the way of dinosaurs should our standard of living take a nosedive. Pendragon39 17:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tis nice to have stirred up some discussusion, but to continue might be better to link to a usenet or yahoo group [ ponder...].

Even before Magna Carta there were rules governing sovereigns, yet now these seem to be under incredible pressure, we are perhaps moving out of a millenium of law or myth of law. There's that Leo Strauss anti enlightenment move that looks back to Athens and far worse, to Rome ( those bundles of wood with the axe, in the senate, were called fascisti: the corporate over the individual).

Traffic cops present interesting models, and the comments above are certainly interesting, but zoning code enforcement goes that one extra step, which is after all 'a bridge too far' of invading privacy. It seems once we had these laws to use against people who's behavior was so outrageous as to cause injury, but otherwise were not enforced. Now code enforcers rumage around your property, collecting 'evidence' without a warrant, and the 'evidence' is admitted by the hearing officer since it's not a 'court of law', ONE HAS NO DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (or so say the adminisberaters of the code enforcement division) . It's as if living in an area makes one a subject to a corporation...

One can understand taxation as fees for using government money or script [ give unto Caesar...], but how can one excuse code enforcers intimidating citizens to yield rights with lies. For instance: a widowed mother had her husbands car parked in front of her house for a year, $500 fine. Previously everytime she talked of moving it her children freaked into tears, anxiety attacks. Determination of junk or abandoned status relies on many particulars including if the vehicle is worth over $250, which said vehicle certainly was, but she didn't know the law, and the adm HO who was a lawyer till he was busted for cocaine( a friend of a friend...) wasn't going to lend a hand... guilty. Sickening.

there's always Amsterdam.... Wblakesx 01:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)wblakesx

Indeed, Wiki may not be the proper place to discuss this (All your talk pages are belong to us!). It is an impromptu discussion though... until we are charged and convicted of violating Wiki rules, I propose to continue.

It's clear that in civil matters, you have less protection. The process is more "streamlined" and history shows that authorities invariably try to get away with as much as they can. Oftentimes the only way to dismantle these structures is to appeal them to a higher court. If the authorities are stubborn enough, it may even have to go before the Supreme Court. There are examples of this in Canada and some of these began as civil matters or tax-related issues.

Ignorance of the law - and your rights - are no excuse. Pendragon39 17:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pendragon, is it against the wiki rules? I would love to have some effect in these issues and this is the only place where anyone has shown an interest. It seems the municiple corporations like to play the "write the unconstitutional laws and enforce them ...when someome stands up, clear the case, off the record " unless the admin beaurocrats are particuarly stupid/evil in which case they will allow it to go to appeal and if they are overturned they simply let that case go, re-write the law ( perhaps adding a comma :) ) and play the same game till challenged. Meanwhile they have raised lots of dosh and preen themselves. It's a transparent conspiracy to deprive individuals of their rights. It also is a breaking of the constitution ( our social Contract, that is, a foundation of civil society ), everyone knows, few care, and it's difficult to "prove" as a criminal matter. It is a particuarly egregious violation of rights in that it is an invasion of ones personal space ( which has a large element of the sacred ), that is it is not in public or in someone elses space. If I were to pursue the issue it would be an investigation of the history of zoning and it's critics, and investigation of the city as a corporation... I think... I think this might be the most important area of law for the maintenence of what we think of as 'freedom'. Free to play penny ante cards, free to drink too much, free to use bad language, free to think non conforming thoughts or use ancient to 19c herbal remedies etc. As far as "ignorance of the law", I think this is changing as society becomes more complex... see legal maxims ( I thought I had seen such an article in wiki, but I just did a search and not much was there... I can't remember where I saw it, but the gist is that they are open to debate and interpretation.) Wiki editors, please show a little patience as this is a supremely important subject, indeed please join in and help stave off the fascist project which shouts 'freedom' to the world while doing backroom deals and bending the contitution for ease and cheapness of administration. Perhaps there could be a wiki article if we had the right title... Wblakesx 01:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)wblakesx

Hi Wblakesx. According to the rules, talk pages are supposed to be used to improve the article in question. I believe this article does mention the limitations to presumption of innocence.

There is an article called Corruption. Some of what was discussed appears in those related pages. Pendragon39 23:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

When corruption is very bad it harms the economy and worsens poverty. Pendragon39 23:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)