Under the Constitution and US Law a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That you don't know that is telling. And yes we put people in jail if accused of certain crimes.
Ijit, all that means is that the government has the burden to prove you guilty and can't compel you to help their case against you. It's nothing but legal theory and doesn't mean a charged person is actually "innocent." That's why the government can lock up people waiting for trial (because we don't actually lock up innocent folks); and why a jury finds a defendant "not guilty" and not "innocent;" and most notably, why a defendant is
"presumed" innocent and not actually innocent.
Presumption of Innocence
The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of CRIMINAL LAW, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.
[...]
The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The EIGHTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical.[/URL]
So you are one of those idiots that thinks because someone was charged with a crime they are guilty. Remind me what Country you are from cause you can not possibly be an American with that belief.
You'd have to be a complete ******* retard to translate my post into that conclusion.
I never said a person is guilty because they're charged. I said they are not innocent. Unless the case against a defendant is dismissed, it's up to a court to find them either
"guilty" or
"not guilty." No court finds them
"innocent." Until the court reaches a verdict, they are
"presumed" innocent.
"Presumed" innocent is not the same as
"actually" innocent.
To drive this point home ... according to your idiocy,
OJ was innocent of murdering his wife and Ron Goldman.
Technically true of course, but in practice not guilty means innocent.
Not in practice either. Again, I defer to my OJ example. With all the evidence against him, no rational person would say OJ was innocent of murder. Yet he was found not guilty due to reasonable doubt.
Saying defendants who are acquitted are "innocent" means folks who committed crimes, but got off on a technicality, are "innocent," even though they actually did commit the crimes for which they were charged.
"Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Courts can't render a defendant "innocent" because they're not. At best, they can be found "not guilty" because the government couldn't meet its burden of proof to find them guilty.
