innocent

brelea09 · November 24, 2009, 04:52 PM

Here,s one
The laws states Innocent till proven guilty!!!!
Well if that is the case they why handcuff and arrest ? if ya hav,nt been to court yet. Really it is GUILTY TO PROVEN INNOCENT true!!!

espnazi · November 24, 2009, 05:13 PM

Being arrested has nothing to do with being guilty. it just means you have been charged with a crime. Believe me we have it good in Mexico it really is guilty until proven innocent.

**Frank Ettin** · November 24, 2009, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brelea09

...The laws states Innocent till proven guilty!!!!
Well if that is the case they why handcuff and arrest ?...

Those are completely separate matters.

"Innocent until proven guilty" refers to the presumption of innocence and burden of proof in criminal litigation (the "Golden Thread of British Justice" as Rumpole of the Bailey puts it). This means that at trial, the prosecution must prove all the element of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury concludes that the prosecution has failed to meet that burden, the defendant is entitled to acquittal.

Arrest and restraint are another thing entirely. In the course of a lawful custodial detention or arrest, the police are permitted to use reasonable force, including mechanical restraints, for their own protection, to secure the person in custody and to prevent escape.

It's been working like that for several hundred years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by espnazi

...in Mexico it really is guilty until proven innocent...

As it is in Spain, France, Italy and other countries whose legal system is based on Civil (Roman) Law rather than Common Law.

**Mike Irwin** · November 25, 2009, 01:59 AM

"As it is in Spain, France, Italy and other countries whose legal system is based on Civil (Roman) Law rather than Common Law."

The French Code of Criminal Instruction was an addendum to the Code Napoleon and was enacted in 1808. It provided for trial by jury, the right to counsel, and the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

As far as I know, the Code of Criminal Instruction is still in effect in France.

**Frank Ettin** · November 25, 2009, 09:15 AM

I stand corrected.

Uncle Buck · November 25, 2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Arrest and restraint are another thing entirely. In the course of a lawful custodial detention or arrest, the police are permitted to use reasonable force, including mechanical restraints, for their own protection, to secure the person in custody and to prevent escape.

When I was in law enforcement, the use of handcuffs was dependant what happened and who was accused of what. It was also used to ensure our safety and the safety of others, including the accused.
If we showed up at a fight and people were still agitated and there was a chance of a continuation of hostilities, someone or more than one was handcuffed.
If we showed up and things appeared to have calmed down a bit, no handcuffs were used.
If we were transporting a suspect, handcuffs were usually used. Law enforcement officers have learned the hard way that the guy who was calm at the scene of the incident would sometimes become dangerously violent when being transported. That is why you now see the 'cage' in most police cars.

doh_312 · December 1, 2009, 11:58 AM

One of my buddies has a very skewed view on our justice system. He believes that if you are sitting in the defendants chair you are guilty because you must have done something to land you in court. He told me if he was on the jury, the guy is guilty, simply because he has been charged and is in court.

Try as a I might I could not show him the error of his thinking. He thinks cops dont make mistakes, DA's always know who is guilty and who is innocent and never accuse innocent people, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time is your fault.

Luckily he has yet to serve on a jury, I hope if I'm ever in the hot seat, my jurors are smarter than that

Brian Pfleuger · December 1, 2009, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Try as a I might I could not show him the error of his thinking. He thinks cops dont make mistakes, DA's always know who is guilty and who is innocent and never accuse innocent people, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time is your fault.

Luckily he has yet to serve on a jury, I hope if I'm ever in the hot seat, my jurors are smarter than that

Holy smokes! I can tell you one thing, if he EVER did serve on a jury then I would be sure to call the court and inform them of his beliefs.

**Mike Irwin** · December 1, 2009, 12:09 PM

Oh, and FYI, even though this is late...

Since World War II the Italian legal system has been massively reformed, and has incorporated many of the protections found in Common Law, including the presumption of innocence to the accused.

The Seattle PI had an interesting rundown on the Italian legal system given the Amanda Knox case.

XD Gunner · December 1, 2009, 01:27 PM

If your being charged it really seems guilty until proven innocent. Especially when the judge has already made up his mind that you are guilty. Granted, that's NOT how it is supposed to work, but that is how it SEEMS to work. At least locally.

KyJim · December 1, 2009, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Luckily he has yet to serve on a jury, I hope if I'm ever in the hot seat, my jurors are smarter than that

Next time you talk with your friend, remind him that he has to take an oath to answer questions honestly during juror voir dire. If he tells the truth, he'll never be on a jury. If he lies, he has committed perjury and he deserves to be sitting in the defendant's chair.

Edward429451 · December 1, 2009, 07:55 PM

So whatever happened to Jury of your Peers...which means to me a jury comprised of people that know me and can speak for my character wether good or bad?

Today's juries are always strangers, and I believe that if they knew a person knew you personally that they would be discharged from duty.

Brian Pfleuger · December 1, 2009, 08:18 PM

For one thing, I've never heard that a jury is supposed to be people who know you. That's not the definition of "peer".

Second, the COTUS makes no such promise anyway. It guarantees "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."

Onward Allusion · December 1, 2009, 08:26 PM

So, if your friend's computer catches a virus and downloads child **** and he gets the whistle blown on him by some repair technician, your friend gets arrested and is placed on trial - He is automatically guilty, eh? BTW, the preceding was based on reality.

Quote:

doh_312
One of my buddies has a very skewed view on our justice system. He believes that if you are sitting in the defendants chair you are guilty because you must have done something to land you in court. He told me if he was on the jury, the guy is guilty, simply because he has been charged and is in court.

<SNIP>He thinks cops dont make mistakes, DA's always know who is guilty and who is innocent and never accuse innocent people, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time is your fault.<SNIP>

Edward429451 · December 1, 2009, 08:33 PM

So what is a jury of my peers?

Brian Pfleuger · December 1, 2009, 08:45 PM

I don't know if it's the technical definition or not but, so far as I know, it basically means that the jury will also be citizens of the same locality wherein the crime occured.

One of my old bosses always said that "peers" meant that a jury should be people of your same lifestyle and/or profession. The problem with that? Can imagine a jury of doctors sitting for a malpractice case? Can you say acquittal, always?

KyJim · December 1, 2009, 09:09 PM

Wherever in the world do you get the idea you are entitled to a jury of your peers? The Sixth Amendment speaks only of the right of an "an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . ." Almost assuredly, anyone who knows you is not going to be impartial.

No disrespect, but if people actually read the Constitution for themselves, they would not put up with a lot of the nonsense in our legal and political system.

**Frank Ettin** · December 1, 2009, 10:10 PM

The "jury of your peers" business comes from old English Common Law when class distinctions were more apparent and generally more accepted. In particular, it meant that if you were nobility, commoners would not be sitting in judgment of you. It has no application in today's world.

November 24, 2009, 04:52 PM	#1
brelea09 Junior Member Join Date: November 21, 2009 Location: Australia Posts: 9	innocent Here,s one The laws states Innocent till proven guilty!!!! Well if that is the case they why handcuff and arrest ? if ya hav,nt been to court yet. Really it is GUILTY TO PROVEN INNOCENT true!!!

November 25, 2009, 01:59 AM	#4
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,380	"As it is in Spain, France, Italy and other countries whose legal system is based on Civil (Roman) Law rather than Common Law." The French Code of Criminal Instruction was an addendum to the Code Napoleon and was enacted in 1808. It provided for trial by jury, the right to counsel, and the right to be innocent until proven guilty. As far as I know, the Code of Criminal Instruction is still in effect in France. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

December 1, 2009, 12:09 PM	#9
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,380	Oh, and FYI, even though this is late... Since World War II the Italian legal system has been massively reformed, and has incorporated many of the protections found in Common Law, including the presumption of innocence to the accused. The Seattle PI had an interesting rundown on the Italian legal system given the Amanda Knox case. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

December 1, 2009, 01:27 PM	#10
XD Gunner Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2006 Location: Central Kentucky Posts: 636	If your being charged it really seems guilty until proven innocent. Especially when the judge has already made up his mind that you are guilty. Granted, that's NOT how it is supposed to work, but that is how it SEEMS to work. At least locally. __________________ I've had 1911s and carry a mutant CCO-sized 1911-ish thing. -Jart If handguns cause crimes, mine's defective.- Eric Shelton

December 1, 2009, 08:18 PM	#13
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	For one thing, I've never heard that a jury is supposed to be people who know you. That's not the definition of "peer". Second, the COTUS makes no such promise anyway. It guarantees "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

November 24, 2009, 05:13 PM	#2
espnazi Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Posts: 256	Being arrested has nothing to do with being guilty. it just means you have been charged with a crime. Believe me we have it good in Mexico it really is guilty until proven innocent.

November 25, 2009, 09:15 AM	#5
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	I stand corrected.

December 1, 2009, 11:58 AM	#7
doh_312 Senior Member Join Date: October 31, 2008 Posts: 312	One of my buddies has a very skewed view on our justice system. He believes that if you are sitting in the defendants chair you are guilty because you must have done something to land you in court. He told me if he was on the jury, the guy is guilty, simply because he has been charged and is in court. Try as a I might I could not show him the error of his thinking. He thinks cops dont make mistakes, DA's always know who is guilty and who is innocent and never accuse innocent people, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time is your fault. Luckily he has yet to serve on a jury, I hope if I'm ever in the hot seat, my jurors are smarter than that

December 1, 2009, 07:55 PM	#12
Edward429451 Junior member Join Date: November 12, 2000 Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado Posts: 9,494	So whatever happened to Jury of your Peers...which means to me a jury comprised of people that know me and can speak for my character wether good or bad? Today's juries are always strangers, and I believe that if they knew a person knew you personally that they would be discharged from duty.

December 1, 2009, 08:33 PM	#15
Edward429451 Junior member Join Date: November 12, 2000 Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado Posts: 9,494	So what is a jury of my peers?

December 1, 2009, 08:45 PM	#16
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	I don't know if it's the technical definition or not but, so far as I know, it basically means that the jury will also be citizens of the same locality wherein the crime occured. One of my old bosses always said that "peers" meant that a jury should be people of your same lifestyle and/or profession. The problem with that? Can imagine a jury of doctors sitting for a malpractice case? Can you say acquittal, always? __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

December 1, 2009, 09:09 PM	#17
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	Wherever in the world do you get the idea you are entitled to a jury of your peers? The Sixth Amendment speaks only of the right of an "an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . ." Almost assuredly, anyone who knows you is not going to be impartial. No disrespect, but if people actually read the Constitution for themselves, they would not put up with a lot of the nonsense in our legal and political system.

December 1, 2009, 10:10 PM	#18
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	The "jury of your peers" business comes from old English Common Law when class distinctions were more apparent and generally more accepted. In particular, it meant that if you were nobility, commoners would not be sitting in judgment of you. It has no application in today's world.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search