Pet Peeve: Innocent until Proven Guilty

[topolino]

A pet peeve of mine is when you are having a private conversation with a friend, relative or co-worker about a current court case, and you give your opinon as to whether you feel the defendant is innocent or guilty. Invariably someone will stop you and say something like "in this country you are innocent until proven guilty".

Do people not realize that that only applies if you are a member of the jury? Any one of us is allowed to speak volumes about someone's guilt or innocence as long as you aren't the judge or jury in the courtroom.

It's one of those situations in which I feel I constantly have to explain myself because someone is ignorant as to what "innocent until proven guilty" means.

 

[minkydog]

I have made judgements of people based on what the media shows, but if *I* were the person who was being investigated I would want people to give me a chance to tell me story before judging me guilty. Kind of hypocritical, i know.

 

[deedeetoo]

I don't understand your concern. It is innocent until proven guilty. You can't decide based on things you have read in a newspaper or on the internet. If people keep saying this to you, perhaps you appear to be jumping to conclusions too quickly.

 

[DVCLiz]

Technically it's "not guilty" until proven guilty, isn't it? No one ever establishes innocence in a court case, only lack of proof of guilt.

 

[Acklander]

A pet peeve of mine is when you are having a private conversation with a friend, relative or co-worker about a current court case, and you give your opinon as to whether you feel the defendant is innocent or guilty. Invariably someone will stop you and say something like "in this country you are innocent until proven guilty".

Do people not realize that that only applies if you are a member of the jury? Any one of us is allowed to speak volumes about someone's guilt or innocence as long as you aren't the judge or jury in the courtroom.

It's one of those situations in which I feel I constantly have to explain myself because someone is ignorant as to what "innocent until proven guilty" means.

Usually when I say innocent until proven guilty in relation to a current court case, its because I haven't heard all the evidence yet so I'm still waiting for the "Perry Mason" moment. The prosecution always goes first, so I can't really make a judgement until I've heard the other side as far as guilt or innocent.

Now there have been plenty of times when I've mentioned that I don't see where the state has made it's case yet - but again, that's because they're first up at bat.

 

[topolino]

Technically it's "not guilty" until proven guilty, isn't it? No one ever establishes innocence in a court case, only lack of proof of guilt.

One cannot be CONVICTED in this country till they are proven guilty, but that doesn't mean I can't say they are guilty to my wife or on this board.

One of my Facebook friends just updated her status to something like "Everyone is saying Casey Anthony is guilty, but we really can't say that until she is proven so". So I wrote, "um, no, we can say she is guilty till we are blue in the face, if we feel she is. No matter how often we say it though, she can't be convicted until the jury says she is. That is what 'innocent until proven guilty' means."

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

One cannot be CONVICTED in this country till they are proven guilty, but that doesn't mean I can't say they are guilty to my wife or on this board.

One of my Facebook friends just updated her status to something like "Everyone is saying Casey Anthony is guilty, but we really can't say that until she is proven so". So I wrote, "um, no, we can say she is guilty till we are blue in the face, if we feel she is. No matter how often we say it though, she can't be convicted until the jury says she is. That is what 'innocent until proven guilty' means."

 

[ebtbmom]

I think I understand where you are coming from. You feel like you can't even have a lively conversation about a court case with someone without being attacked! Of course we can all form our own opinions, what is it going to do? I seriously doubt that you will make it your life's mission to go out and find all the missed evidence to convict a person just because you felt like they were guilty.

I feel like this when people always throw around "don't judge other people" like you are not allowed to even have an opinion about someone's character, lifestyle, choice of clothing, parenting style, etc. If no one ever judged any behavior then that would indicate that every behavior, no matter how destructive or aberrant, would be acceptable.

 

[frijolefrito]

A pet peeve of mine is when you are having a private conversation with a friend, relative or co-worker about a current court case, and you give your opinon as to whether you feel the defendant is innocent or guilty. Invariably someone will stop you and say something like "in this country you are innocent until proven guilty".

Do people not realize that that only applies if you are a member of the jury? Any one of us is allowed to speak volumes about someone's guilt or innocence as long as you aren't the judge or jury in the courtroom.

It's one of those situations in which I feel I constantly have to explain myself because someone is ignorant as to what "innocent until proven guilty" means.

I hate it when it's pretty clear and people play devil's advocate. HOW do you know? HOW do you know the guy standing over the dead body with a knife dripping with blood... is guilty? I mean his sister could have made some meatloaf and he cut it and that's ketchup!

 

[topolino]

I think I understand where you are coming from. You feel like you can't even have a lively conversation about a court case with someone without being attacked! Of course we can all form our own opinions, what is it going to do? I seriously doubt that you will make it your life's mission to go out and find all the missed evidence to convict a person just because you felt like they were guilty.

I feel like this when people always throw around "don't judge other people" like you are not allowed to even have an opinion about someone's character, lifestyle, choice of clothing, parenting style, etc. If no one ever judged any behavior then that would indicate that every behavior, no matter how destructive or aberrant, would be acceptable.

Exactly, you put that into words that I couldn't find earlier. Maybe the people who are quick to stop you when you express your opinion about someone's guilt is just another example of politically correctness running amok (amuck) (How DO you spell that word?)

 

[Aisling]

I don't understand your concern. It is innocent until proven guilty. You can't decide based on things you have read in a newspaper or on the internet. If people keep saying this to you, perhaps you appear to be jumping to conclusions too quickly.

I agree with the OP.

If my mind tells me I feel someone is guilty, I'm not going to tell myself "oh you can't feel that way because the law says innocent until proven guilty."

I can and do decide based on things I read on the internet or see on the news. And if I find out I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

I never did like people telling me what to believe and how to feel.

If I were on a jury, well, that's a totally different thing in my mind.

 

[topolino]

I hate it when it's pretty clear and people play devil's advocate. HOW do you know? HOW do you know the guy standing over the dead body with a knife dripping with blood... is guilty? I mean his sister could have made some meatloaf and he cut it and that's ketchup!

 

[Acklander]

One cannot be CONVICTED in this country till they are proven guilty, but that doesn't mean I can't say they are guilty to my wife or on this board.

One of my Facebook friends just updated her status to something like "Everyone is saying Casey Anthony is guilty, but we really can't say that until she is proven so". So I wrote, "um, no, we can say she is guilty till we are blue in the face, if we feel she is. No matter how often we say it though, she can't be convicted until the jury says she is. That is what 'innocent until proven guilty' means."

Now on the Casey Anthony case (which I've been watching just the highlights of, so I might have missed something) is one of the cases where I don't think the state has proven their case yet. Do I think she did it? yup - but I'm not seeing where the state has tied HER directly to the crime.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Technically it's "not guilty" until proven guilty, isn't it? No one ever establishes innocence in a court case, only lack of proof of guilt.

And also technically, I was under the assumption that this is to prevent law enforcement or the courts making someone prove their innocence.

The only time that my "opinion" requires me adhere to the "innocent until proven guilty" statement is if I am sitting on a jury where I would absolutely concur that the plaintiff must prove that guilt with evidence and testimony.

In the meantime, as a public citizen, I can and do provide an opinion if I feel that I have seen enough. I.e. Casey Anthony. Due to sunshine laws, I was exposed to quite a bit. And Truthfully, very little has come up in the trial thus far that I have not already seen. There are things I have forgotten about and things that now have a technical expert provided detailed responses to prosecutions questions and defense's cross examine. So I Am comfortable that I have heard enough through the whole thing to weigh an opinion on whether I believe her to be innocent or guilty.

The constitution doesn't guarantee the right to fair public opinion.


Another pet peeve of mine is when people think that a trial is only fair if the entire jury never ever ever heard a peep about the case. There is no constitutional guarantee of an "ignorant" jury where the jury is "ignorant" of anything involved in the case. Now certainly if they know something, have formulated an opinion and cannot set their opinion aside, that would not be fair. But they don't have to be completely clueless or the person to get a fair trial.

 

[topolino]

Now on the Casey Anthony case (which I've been watching just the highlights of, so I might have missed something) is one of the cases where I don't think the state has proven their case yet. Do I think she did it? yup - but I'm not seeing where the state has tied HER directly to the crime.

I agree and in a way, that's my point. While I think she did it, I wouldn't feel right saying so quite yet,if I were on the jury. But I sure as heck don't mind throwing it around over a pizza with my friends, because my opinion has no bearing on the case. Even in that situation though, there are those who will make you feel like you're breaching some kind of code by saying she is guilty even though she hasn't yet been proven so.

 

[T*Bird]

A pet peeve of mine is when you are having a private conversation with a friend, relative or co-worker about a current court case, and you give your opinon as to whether you feel the defendant is innocent or guilty. Invariably someone will stop you and say something like "in this country you are innocent until proven guilty".

Do people not realize that that only applies if you are a member of the jury? Any one of us is allowed to speak volumes about someone's guilt or innocence as long as you aren't the judge or jury in the courtroom.

It's one of those situations in which I feel I constantly have to explain myself because someone is ignorant as to what "innocent until proven guilty" means.

It's funny you mention that! I'm watching "Dr. Drew" right now, and he had on as guest commentators a lady who is a consultant to the CA defense team (sorry, don't know her name-I've never seen her on TV before), as well as another defense attorney. The CA attorney kept saying how troubling it is, in her view, that "everyone" is presuming CA guilty already without even hearing the defense's case. I was surprised to hear the other attorney (surprised because he is a defense attorney) call her out and point out that it is only in a courtroom that a defendant is afforded that right. Freedom of speech gives any and all of us the right to voice our opinion on guilt or innocence. We may even change our opinion during the course of a trial, but there is nothing wrong with saying how we feel because we are not on the jury.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

One cannot be CONVICTED in this country till they are proven guilty, but that doesn't mean I can't say they are guilty to my wife or on this board.

One of my Facebook friends just updated her status to something like "Everyone is saying Casey Anthony is guilty, but we really can't say that until she is proven so". So I wrote, "um, no, we can say she is guilty till we are blue in the face, if we feel she is. No matter how often we say it though, she can't be convicted until the jury says she is. That is what 'innocent until proven guilty' means."

 

[topolino]

It's funny you mention that! I'm watching "Dr. Drew" right now, and he had on as guest commentators a lady who is a consultant to the CA defense team (sorry, don't know her name-I've never seen her on TV before), as well as another defense attorney. The CA attorney kept saying how troubling it is, in her view, that "everyone" is presuming CA guilty already without even hearing the defense's case. I was surprised to hear the other attorney (surprised because he is a defense attorney) call her out and point out that it is only in a courtroom that a defendant is afforded that right. Freedom of speech gives any and all of us the right to voice our opinion on guilt or innocence. We may even change our opinion during the course of a trial, but there is nothing wrong with saying how we feel because we are not on the jury.

I swear to God, I didn't see that, I'm watching the hockey game!!

But it's true. And that is why juries are sequestered, so they aren't influenced by big-mouths like us who give our opinion to anyone who will listen!!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Now on the Casey Anthony case (which I've been watching just the highlights of, so I might have missed something) is one of the cases where I don't think the state has proven their case yet. Do I think she did it? yup - but I'm not seeing where the state has tied HER directly to the crime.

We won't.

It is entirely a circumstantial case. They only need to prove she was the only one who could have done it. Not the meter reader. Not to tooth fairy. Not George.

As it stands--it seems that most experts agree that while they don't have to "prove" anything on the defense--they made a horrific accusation and have no evidence to back it up. While they don't have to prove it--from the start it severely weakens their case if they don't. Thus far...George is "innocent until proven guilty".

 

[TLSnell1981]

I swear to God, I didn't see that, I'm watching the hockey game!!

But it's true. And that is why juries are sequestered, so they aren't influenced by big-mouths like us who give our opinion to anyone who will listen!!

But, the media attention, BEFORE the trial, can influence a juror. Especially true in a high profile case. IMO

Personally, I like to hear both sides, BEFORE I make up my mind.