- Moderator
- #1
I was inspired by the Zimmerman-Martin case to start this poll, but the purpose of my thread is not to discuss that case, but principles of our justice system. Please try to keep on topic and not devolve back to the Z-M case.
In the United States our court system operates on certain Constitutional/civil right principles. Namely:
1) All men/women are innocent until proven guilty.
2) The State/Commonwealth/Feds have the burden to prove any person guilty.
3) The burden of proof is "Beyond a reasonable doubt"
Now here is the poll question:
If you believe someone to be guilty, whether based on evidence or some other assumptions or reasons, but the government is unable for whatever reason to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, Should that person be set free or should we find that person guilty despite the government being able to meet their burden?
In the United States our court system operates on certain Constitutional/civil right principles. Namely:
1) All men/women are innocent until proven guilty.
2) The State/Commonwealth/Feds have the burden to prove any person guilty.
3) The burden of proof is "Beyond a reasonable doubt"
Now here is the poll question:
If you believe someone to be guilty, whether based on evidence or some other assumptions or reasons, but the government is unable for whatever reason to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, Should that person be set free or should we find that person guilty despite the government being able to meet their burden?
