Dweller of Parables Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?Discuss.(Pollz...aren't viewed as much.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Optimism, pessimism.Dumb topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father Wolf Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Innocent until proven guilty. the other way around sucks hard if ur just the guy taking all the heat from something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweller of Parables Posted July 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I think guilty until proven innocent is pretty effective, but then it sucks when people find out later when the guy that was guilty was actually innocent.Optimism' date=' pessimism.Dumb topic.[/quote'] Better than pie. =P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Both ways. Today is my hypothetical example day: We have John and Joan. John has commited a crime of murdering someone and Joan has not. John lives in a world where "innocent until guilty" applies, and Joan lives in a world where "guilty until innocent" applies. John's lawyers have no evidence that John didn't commit a crime, but John's opposition has no evidence he DID. Therefore, the jury abides by the law and the guilty man is now innocent. Joan's lawyers have no evidence that Joan didn't commit a crime, but Joan's opposition has no evidence he DID. Therefore, the jury abides by the law and the innocent man is now guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirsten889 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 the first way around. the other one doesn't make as much sence and isn't as cool sounding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I remember when America tried to do guilty until proven innocence. It was called the Salem Witch Trials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegirlthewurlds Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 the first one cuz the sec one is stupid and makes no sence atall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweller of Parables Posted July 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I remember when America tried to do guilty until proven innocence. It was called the Salem Witch Trials. I hoped someone would say that sooner or later. XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecoboy1324 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I remember when America tried to do guilty until proven innocence. It was called the Salem Witch Trials. That was pre americaThe american case that comes to mind is sacco and vinzetti vs the us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 those stupid a-hole f**ked up the trial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacoby746 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Guilty until proven innocent, or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Guilty until proven Guilty. Innocent until proven not guilty. Easy as that. That's a contradiction. What are they when they're not proven? They can't be both innocent and guilty at once. They're a suspect until proven guilty or innocent, in which case they're guilty or innocent. Until they're proven innocent or guilty, they are neither, but merely a suspect. No more guilty or innocent than the next guy, but more likely to be guilty in your eyes based on ____. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacoby746 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Guilty until proven Guilty. Innocent until proven not guilty. Easy as that. That's a contradiction. What are they when they're not proven? They can't be both innocent and guilty at once. They're a suspect until proven guilty or innocent' date=' in which case they're guilty or innocent. Until they're proven innocent or guilty, they are neither, but merely a suspect. No more guilty or innocent than the next guy, but more likely to be guilty in your eyes based on ____.[/quote'] Oh, I wasn't really paying attention to what I was typing. Fix'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mehmani Posted July 18, 2009 Report Share Posted July 18, 2009 I remember when America tried to do guilty until proven innocence. It was called the Salem Witch Trials. That's because America used to fail. Now it's all like 'GTFO, white republicanos, you suck KKK balls'. And because of Obama and the Democrats, it's epic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted July 19, 2009 Report Share Posted July 19, 2009 @ Polaris What exactly do you mean by suspect? In "innocent until guilty", the person is innocent if the opposition comes up with no evidence that says otherwise. In "guilty until innocent", the person is guilty if his/her lawyer's cannot come up with evidence that says otherwise. Does suspect mean you are guilty or innocent? You cannot be neither, nor both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.