• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Is "presumption of innocence" a bad thing?

      There are many who are arguing that it is bad.

      They argue that under circumstances (which they cherry-pick) in which one person accuses another person that the accuser should be believed and that the accused needs to prove their innocence.

      Should a person with power or prestige be always assumed to be lying?

      Should a person who lacks power or prestige be always assumed to be truthful?

      Should anyone who starts off poor but who becomes successful be automatically "fair game" for any unsubstantiated accusations made against them?


      Should we continue to hold the position that a person should never be convicted unless there is no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused?

      Below is a very recent article in which the writer opposes the presumption of innocence.

      Two quotations from the article:

      Yet the presumption of innocence is not a neutral stance in these cases. It presumes, by extension, that the accuser must be lying or mistaken unless proved otherwise.


      They can begin, above all, by assuming that those who stick out their neck to denounce racism are telling the truth.

    • The way I look at it is the worst thing that can happen in the justice system is an innocent person getting put behind bars. It happens far too often. Especially to people of color.

      I think we can do both. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. We can protect the innocent and convict the guilty provided we don't let things like racial bias creep into the system. That's been our biggest issue, imo.