While reading my psychology book...

[sith_empress]

I came across this statement.

"...juries [who] must assume innocence unless guilt is proven, because they would rather risk setting free a guilty person than convicting an innocent person."

Now call me an asshole/d-bag/bitch/heartless blob, but I don't agree. At all.

Comments

[simply_amelie]

i won't call you any of those things, but i will tell you to read the constitution. maybe focusing on the bill of rights part.

and, no, i will call you a heartless blob. if i'm ever on the jury for your conviction i'll make sure to have a prejudiced mind towards your conviction. i know that's what you want.

[sith_empress]

good thing i don't plan on being convicted of anything.

[simply_amelie]

oh, so most likely to be convicted thespian jokes nonwithstanding, you don't plan to be while you idolize a sustem that creates the need for actualization.

i'm just gonna stop now. you'll never understand this principle and will probably never understand the bill of rights. so listen to the second amendment, ignore everything else, do whatever the hell you want, and don't bring this up again unless you want mattie and i to intellectually bitch slap again.

sorry for any offense, and i hope the feeling is mutual.

[sith_empress]

I like it how you claim to be educated but you automatically assume that because I voice my opinion, which happens to be one of my First Ammendment Rights (freedom of speech), I'm unable to grasp the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Educated people don't jump to conclusions and make assumptions because as we all know, when you assume you make an ass out of you and me.

Anyways, seeing as how this is MY livejournal, I'll say whatever I please and if you don't like it don't read it. No one is forcing you to.

Also, I wasn't attacking/bashing the court system entirely, it's just flawed and I was pointing that out in a rather roundabout assanine way. And of course I realize that no system is completely flawless. I just wish it was. But o well I suppose.

Anyways, in the future, please take the stick out of your ass before you comment on my livejournal.

[robot_vs_ninja]

This is why you're not involved in the court system.

I think that understand where the idea of innocent until proven guilty is important

[sith_empress]

I understand it but I think it's ridiculous. Letting guilty people go because they might be innocent? So they can go out and murder and rape some more? Yeah that's a great idea.

[robot_vs_ninja]

What? you make no sense

Innocent until proven guilty.

Without sufficient proof of guilt, how can you honestly put someone in prison?

I mean, the system is flawed, guilty people get off, innocent people are found guilty, it happens. There's no court system that is flawless

[sith_empress]

I understand what innocent until proven guilty means. I just don't like it that murderers and rapists etc. get off the hook. Of course I don't have a solution and I know the system is flawed and there's no way of rectifying that, but I don't know...

Anyways I'm an asshole and I know it.

[heart_of_texas]

I personally think that juries become to liberal in that they hold on too desperately to the "beyond a reasonable doubt". The key word is REASONABLE, which they tend to forget. People, in my opinion, get off too easily on this

[robot_vs_ninja]

There are so many things wrong with what you just said...

As I said in an early post, I think the job of the government is to protect us (the majority) from criminals.
That is not the "job" of the government. The government offers us security in the form of a social contract: as long as we agree to be subject to their rule, they will protect our inalienable rights. However, we have the inherent right to change the government as per majority vote. (And what is exactly do you mean by "us" being the majority? Are you insinuating that they should do away with minority rights here? Protect the majority, but not the minority is how I read that.)

Hell yeah I'd go in with some predjudice.
And this is why, if you're ever sent a notice of jury duty in the mail, you won't be chosen as a juror.

The point of a jury is so that an OBJECTIVE verdict can be reached based on evidence. This means that they're looking for people without prejudice before entering into the case. Take a government class.

Damn conservative Texans =P

[heart_of_texas]

I never said we should do away with the minority, that would be stupid.

But the government represents the will of the majority. If they represented the minority nobody would be happy. I'm not talking about minorities as in racial groups, I'm talking about minorities as in opinions. And this does not affect basic rights, so I have no idea why you are getting so inflamed.

And I'm also not saying I'd go in to a court room with guilty already written out. I'm just saying, it sounds reasonable to believe that the prosocuters would already have a strong case against the accused. And you can't expect all lawyers to be grade A, so you have to give them a little leway.
On a similar note you also must keep in mind that even elected officials can have other agendas, by this I mean it is reasonable to believe that someone may have been framed. Another reason not to go in with a verdict of guilty.

And if you have a problem with me posting my own opinions get a grip on reality.

[robot_vs_ninja]

Finally!

A decent argument to which I submit.

And I knew that by "minorities" you weren't making any implication of racial groups.

Although it also reasonable to believe that the the defense has a strong case as well, no matter whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. It's not as if only one side comes prepared.

Note: prosecutors*

I don't have any problems with you posting your opinion, I have a problem with you stepping in on the discussion Eedee and I were having. Other than that, I don't care. I encourage debate!