Elephant in the room?

[colhusker]

Needs to be a bigger penalty for false allegations.  Not saying that is the case here, but one person can ruin another's life with one statement true or not.

 

[huskerbill85]

What the hell is wrong with some of you?

[Dean Smith]

18 hours ago, cornfed24-7 said:

No but you seem to be blindly ignoring reality. 4 charges. 4 separate instances. A girl between 12 and 16. You want to die on the "Innocent until proven guilty" hill be my guest. He'll have his day in court.

Having nothing to do with this case but in general and in principle, innocent until proven guilty isn’t a hill to climb but is supposed to be the cornerstone of the American legal system. Without that there is no justice for anyone charged of any crime. Some cases seem pretty open and shut going in and the standards for a message board is certainly going to be lower but all jurors should walk into that box assuming the defendant is innocent. 

[cornfed24-7]

2 hours ago, Dean Smith said:

 all jurors should walk into that box assuming the defendant is innocent. 

All jurors should go in ready to evaluate the facts of the case. And after the facts are laid out determine if the defendant is not guilty or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Edited July 31, 2021 by cornfed24-7
Oops

[Dean Smith]

4 hours ago, cornfed24-7 said:

All jurors should go in ready to evaluate the facts of the case. And after the facts are laid out determine if the defendant is not guilty or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If they follow the principle upon which our legal system is supposed to follow then they walk in assuming innocence. The burden of proof is completely on the prosecution. The defense doesn’t need to lay out any facts if they chose not to. And if you are say 85% sure they are guilty, your vote should be not guilty since the prosecution has not proven their case beyond a shadow of a doubt. The standard is lower for civil cases vs criminal cases. That’s why the term is “not guilty” and not “innocent.” Innocence would need to be proven and the defense is under no obligation to prove anything. Not guilty does not mean innocent. It means the prosecution has not met their burden of proof. That’s they ideal. I’m aware that is not the reality.  

[cornfed24-7]

35 minutes ago, Dean Smith said:

If they follow the principle upon which our legal system is supposed to follow then they walk in assuming innocence. The burden of proof is completely on the prosecution. The defense doesn’t need to lay out any facts if they chose not to. And if you are say 85% sure they are guilty, your vote should be not guilty since the prosecution has not proven their case beyond a shadow of a doubt. The standard is lower for civil cases vs criminal cases. That’s why the term is “not guilty” and not “innocent.” Innocence would need to be proven and the defense is under no obligation to prove anything. Not guilty does not mean innocent. It means the prosecution has not met their burden of proof. That’s they ideal. I’m aware that is not the reality.  

Just don't agree. The system is built on Justice is blind. That's the system. Not presumed innocents. That's what you get as a defendant. Semantics maybe. The system then judges on the facts. Blindly. But I too think this is an idealistic and completely unrealistic reality. It just doesn't work that way. 

Like I said the entire time. He'll get his day in court. 

 

[Dean Smith]

1 hour ago, cornfed24-7 said:

Just don't agree. The system is built on Justice is blind. That's the system. Not presumed innocents. That's what you get as a defendant. Semantics maybe. The system then judges on the facts. Blindly. But I too think this is an idealistic and completely unrealistic reality. It just doesn't work that way. 

Like I said the entire time. He'll get his day in court. 

 

I’m not giving you an opinion to agree or disagree with but telling you the facts of the system. There are things written down. Innocent until proven guilting is supposed to be the cornerstone and starting point of our system. 
 

And our system is not designed to judge the facts. That would be an inquisitional system like they use in France. There is only one side in that system that looks at all the evidence and presents the case as they see it. Our system is built on two partial sides in competition where the judge and jury are supposed to be the impartial ones and they are supposed to start with the presumption of innocence. 

 

I am also well aware that our system does not work as intended. For example, overwhelming negative or positive media coverage can spoil the jury pool and juries usually walk in leaning towards guilty because of the presumption that if they didn’t do something why are we here? 

[tcp]

well, didn't see this one coming. back to my interior fantasy world where everyone eats happy cake and butterflies sing show tunes. 

[cornfed24-7]

58 minutes ago, Dean Smith said:

I’m not giving you an opinion to agree or disagree with but telling you the facts of the system. There are things written down. Innocent until proven guilting is supposed to be the cornerstone and starting point of our system. 
 

And our system is not designed to judge the facts. That would be an inquisitional system like they use in France. There is only one side in that system that looks at all the evidence and presents the case as they see it. Our system is built on two partial sides in competition where the judge and jury are supposed to be the impartial ones and they are supposed to start with the presumption of innocence. 

 

I am also well aware that our system does not work as intended. For example, overwhelming negative or positive media coverage can spoil the jury pool and juries usually walk in leaning towards guilty because of the presumption that if they didn’t do something why are we here? 

I get you are explaining one principle of the system. And this principle is established in case law.  And the presumption of innocence is not innocent. As far as this particular case this gentleman has been given the presumption of innocence. As I said He'll get his day in court.  

 

We can define torts next if you like. And yes it's not the reality of our system. The reality of our system is perpetrators of sexual assault are much more likely to be set free or not charged than an innocent person wrongly accused regardles of all the anecdotal evidence.

[Vinny]

[jimmykc]

I'm not going to believe any of this until I hear it from.....(Too soon??)

Edited August 1, 2021 by jimmykc

[BannedAccount]

This should put all the innocent till proven guilty to bed.  Thank you.

Edited August 18, 2021 by coughunter

[tcp]

6 hours ago, coughunter said:

This should put all the innocent till proven guilty to bed.  Thank you.

 

should avoid this conversation, but it's late and I'm tired, and this is one of my biggest pet peeves. Just because a prosecutor leaks or says something in public doesn't constitute evidence of anything. this is a huge problem with our system: we assume police and prosecutors never make mistakes (or worse) and thus if you're charged, you're guilty. this may be true. it also may not. and there's plenty of precedents for both outcomes. 

[BannedAccount]

7 hours ago, tcp said:

 

should avoid this conversation, but it's late and I'm tired, and this is one of my biggest pet peeves. Just because a prosecutor leaks or says something in public doesn't constitute evidence of anything. this is a huge problem with our system: we assume police and prosecutors never make mistakes (or worse) and thus if you're charged, you're guilty. this may be true. it also may not. and there's plenty of precedents for both outcomes. 

The thing is as I said earlier with these type of charges and the nature of the crime it is much different

[Norm Peterson]

On 7/30/2021 at 4:57 PM, Bugeaters1 said:

How do you know it was a girl? Yes I will stand by that until proven guilty. He who has not sinned cast the first stone.

 

He was only guessing. And apparently not a very good guesser.

[cornfed24-7]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

He was only guessing. And apparently not a very good guesser.

Maybe you have another little anecdote about your friend that could REALLY bring your point home ;)

[Norm Peterson]

13 minutes ago, cornfed24-7 said:

Maybe you have another little anecdote about your friend that could REALLY bring your point home ;)

 

Where did I say "friend"?

[cornfed24-7]

22 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Where did I say "friend"?

Sorry. Random guy you knew in the Army? Better?

[hhcmatt]

This isn't a winnable thread

[tcp]

13 hours ago, hhcmatt said:

This isn't a winnable thread

 

what's the elam ending equivalent here?