Presumption of Guilt

[Zzyzx]

Here is a real situation that is happening to friends at this moment. Their son, age about thirty-five, is in jail changed with molesting his two daughters. Bail is set at $200,000. He has no attorney. He is considering pleading guilty. His parents are understandably distraught. They say that they do not know if their son is guilty or not.

Mutual friends tend to believe that the son is guilty and deserves very harsh punishment (and are not very understanding toward his parents). They appear convinced of guilt because the son has been arrested, bond was set quite high, and they hear that he may plead guilty.

The position that my wife and I take is that the American Way in law and custom is “Innocent unless convicted by a jury of peers in a court of law, subject to judicial review”. We maintain that a decision to admit guilt (if it should happen) is NOT reason to assume guilt before a court decision and review (if ever appealed) because people have been known to plead guilty for a number of reasons (plea bargaining, promise of light sentence, fear of trial, ignorance of the law, improper legal advice (or lack thereof), family or social pressure, police coercion, hopelessness, etc).

What do you think?

Do religious beliefs enter the situation in any way?

[McCulloch]

The legal system grinds slowly, even though we believe that justice delayed is justice denied. It also favours those who can afford the best lawyers. This creates an unbalanced system. No one should have to consider pleading guilty if they are not.

If someone admits to having done a crime (that is what pleading guilty is) that we should all honour that statement by believing it, unless there is sufficient cause to believe that the admission is false.

Do religious beliefs enter the situation in any way?

Jesus said, "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." A follower of this one of Jesus' teachings would not falsely admit to doing a crime.

[romat]

In the event of someone who is accused of something they have not done but the ase against them is watertight they can make what is called a nolo plea. This unlike guilty is where you accept the punishment but still deny the crime.

[Caligar]

The position that my wife and I take is that the American Way in law and custom is “Innocent unless convicted by a jury of peers in a court of law, subject to judicial review”.

In law its not always inocent until proven guilty.

[Zzyzx]

The position that my wife and I take is that the American Way in law and custom is “Innocent unless convicted by a jury of peers in a court of law, subject to judicial review”.

In law its not always inocent until proven guilty.

Would you please expand on this concept?

In what ways is it different from, “Innocent unless convicted by a jury of peers in a court of law, subject to judicial review”?

[Caligar]

The position that my wife and I take is that the American Way in law and custom is “Innocent unless convicted by a jury of peers in a court of law, subject to judicial review”.

In law its not always inocent until proven guilty.

Would you please expand on this concept?

In what ways is it different from, “Innocent unless convicted by a jury of peers in a court of law, subject to judicial review”?

There is such thing as reverse onus offenses (res ipsa loquitur).
And you don't have to be convicted of a crime by a jury to get punished for it (You can be tried by a judge alone, or a police officer can convict using summary conviction punishments.

[Goat]

The position that my wife and I take is that the American Way in law and custom is “Innocent unless convicted by a jury of peers in a court of law, subject to judicial review”.

In law its not always inocent until proven guilty.

Would you please expand on this concept?

In what ways is it different from, “Innocent unless convicted by a jury of peers in a court of law, subject to judicial review”?

There is such thing as reverse onus offenses (res ipsa loquitur).
And you don't have to be convicted of a crime by a jury to get punished for it (You can be tried by a judge alone, or a police officer can convict using summary conviction punishments.

There are also payments of fines in situations where you say 'We do not admit guilt, but we are paying the fine because it is not cost effective for us to fight it'.

[Vanguard]

Here is a real situation that is happening to friends at this moment. Their son, age about thirty-five, is in jail changed with molesting his two daughters. Bail is set at $200,000. He has no attorney. He is considering pleading guilty. His parents are understandably distraught. They say that they do not know if their son is guilty or not.

Mutual friends tend to believe that the son is guilty and deserves very harsh punishment (and are not very understanding toward his parents). They appear convinced of guilt because the son has been arrested, bond was set quite high, and they hear that he may plead guilty.

The position that my wife and I take is that the American Way in law and custom is “Innocent unless convicted by a jury of peers in a court of law, subject to judicial review”. We maintain that a decision to admit guilt (if it should happen) is NOT reason to assume guilt before a court decision and review (if ever appealed) because people have been known to plead guilty for a number of reasons (plea bargaining, promise of light sentence, fear of trial, ignorance of the law, improper legal advice (or lack thereof), family or social pressure, police coercion, hopelessness, etc).

What do you think?

I would rather that the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" remain within the legal context. I do not believe this standard should have anything to do with my own personal beliefs about guilt or innocence. I should be able to discuss beliefs of guilt or innocence with whomever I want and as vocally as I want.

If the man is found not-guilty I will honor this legal verdict by not unlawfully preventing him from exercising to the fullest extent those liberties guaranteed the rest of us. I still might think he is guilty though and I may change the nature of my interactions with him.

Do religious beliefs enter the situation in any way?

I imagine that if the offense involved is a powerful moral infraction I would tend to judge him in the court of public opinion more harshly than otherwise.

[Flail]

I am a Criminal defense attorney. I can't imagine that he does not have an attorney as one will automatically be appointed if he cant afford one. No judge would proceed on such serious charges without having the defendant represented by counsel. Private attorneys are better in that they are the most experienced and you get what you pay for usually.....he would have to go thru a lenghty proceeding to waive counsel and proceed 'pro se'...to represent himself....there are many more issues at stake here than just innocence or guilt....punishment...rehab...counseling ...conditions of probation...degrees of molestation...grades of the crime...etc....

get an attorney