Back
to top
Innocent Until Proven Guilty... where has it gone?
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
It would appear that these days, mere accusations alone are enough for either or both an individual and a group of individuals to be considered guilty of a committing a crime and then being rejected from society, regardless of whether they are actually guilty of having committed that crime or not.
I mean, seriously, all that matters nowadays is that a person accuses you of doing a (oftentimes, serious...) crime, and that's that. Sure, there may be a court hearing, sure there may be an investigation, but even then, people still automatically assume you are guilty and that you are no longer human, because you are accused. Another thing that really annoys me about this is that, even with alibis being there to back you up, you as the one being accused, has to go through the immense trouble of finding concrete evidence (yes, concrete, as in, actual, physical, hard evidence; not exactly just witnesses since like the accuser and the accused, they can lie if they choose) to support your claims of being innocent, when all the accuser has to do is make an accusation without exactly having to find such evidence and there we go, you are instantly guilty in various cases (maybe not in the eyes of the law, but i wonder if that could be said for the average person who doesn't exactly know you well, now eh?).
So, provided that one does not already exist (and if it does, then it isn't exactly being enforced much of the time, now huh?), I think a new law should be enforced. This law should state that "if you proceed to accuse an individual of having committed a crime, then it is YOUR responsibility to find concrete evidence to support your claims; the accusation cannot be investigated in full and be treated as objective and therefore as factual, unless you can provide the concrete evidence available for supporting it". Of course, in various situations, this cannot be properly enforced, if at all, but surely in the vast majority of them, it can, right? Now, of course, the accused will have to find relevant alibis to support their claims of being innocent, but the accuser also needs to do this as well (they can ask for assistance to do this, also).
Also...
In order to dissuade people from abusing this via evidence fabrication, I also think, if it hasn't been passed already, that there should be a law stating that "anyone caught accusing someone of a crime and producing false evidence to support their claims, shall suffer the consequences of their doing so and therefore will be punished in the most appropriate fashion available". Because seriously, these days law, order and justice is becoming a joke; people commiting crimes getting away with it, people lying about others committing crimes getting away with it, etc.
Or maybe we should just not do any of that and allow people to get the death penalty for spitting on the streets, since people who do that cause my mum a whole lot of stress due to her insane germophobic mindset.
I mean, seriously, all that matters nowadays is that a person accuses you of doing a (oftentimes, serious...) crime, and that's that. Sure, there may be a court hearing, sure there may be an investigation, but even then, people still automatically assume you are guilty and that you are no longer human, because you are accused. Another thing that really annoys me about this is that, even with alibis being there to back you up, you as the one being accused, has to go through the immense trouble of finding concrete evidence (yes, concrete, as in, actual, physical, hard evidence; not exactly just witnesses since like the accuser and the accused, they can lie if they choose) to support your claims of being innocent, when all the accuser has to do is make an accusation without exactly having to find such evidence and there we go, you are instantly guilty in various cases (maybe not in the eyes of the law, but i wonder if that could be said for the average person who doesn't exactly know you well, now eh?).
So, provided that one does not already exist (and if it does, then it isn't exactly being enforced much of the time, now huh?), I think a new law should be enforced. This law should state that "if you proceed to accuse an individual of having committed a crime, then it is YOUR responsibility to find concrete evidence to support your claims; the accusation cannot be investigated in full and be treated as objective and therefore as factual, unless you can provide the concrete evidence available for supporting it". Of course, in various situations, this cannot be properly enforced, if at all, but surely in the vast majority of them, it can, right? Now, of course, the accused will have to find relevant alibis to support their claims of being innocent, but the accuser also needs to do this as well (they can ask for assistance to do this, also).
Also...
In order to dissuade people from abusing this via evidence fabrication, I also think, if it hasn't been passed already, that there should be a law stating that "anyone caught accusing someone of a crime and producing false evidence to support their claims, shall suffer the consequences of their doing so and therefore will be punished in the most appropriate fashion available". Because seriously, these days law, order and justice is becoming a joke; people commiting crimes getting away with it, people lying about others committing crimes getting away with it, etc.
Or maybe we should just not do any of that and allow people to get the death penalty for spitting on the streets, since people who do that cause my mum a whole lot of stress due to her insane germophobic mindset.
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by Anonymous)
In order to dissuade people from abusing this via evidence fabrication, I also think, if it hasn't been passed already, that there should be a law stating that "anyone caught accusing someone of a crime and producing false evidence to support their claims, shall suffer the consequences of their doing so and therefore will be punished in the most appropriate fashion available". Because seriously, these days law, order and justice is becoming a joke; people commiting crimes getting away with it, people lying about others committing crimes getting away with it, etc.
In order to dissuade people from abusing this via evidence fabrication, I also think, if it hasn't been passed already, that there should be a law stating that "anyone caught accusing someone of a crime and producing false evidence to support their claims, shall suffer the consequences of their doing so and therefore will be punished in the most appropriate fashion available". Because seriously, these days law, order and justice is becoming a joke; people commiting crimes getting away with it, people lying about others committing crimes getting away with it, etc.
1
reply
(Original post by Sulfolobus)
Evidently you are unaware of offences such as perjury, perverting the course of justice or wasting police time. I encourage you to learn more about law, order and justice before you dismiss it as a joke.
Evidently you are unaware of offences such as perjury, perverting the course of justice or wasting police time. I encourage you to learn more about law, order and justice before you dismiss it as a joke.
And depending on the issue, there are groups of people who do what you say are offences and do not get charged with it at all. Just a slap on the wrist.
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by Anonymous)
It would appear that these days, mere accusations alone are enough for either or both an individual and a group of individuals to be considered guilty of a committing a crime and then being rejected from society, regardless of whether they are actually guilty of having committed that crime or not.
I mean, seriously, all that matters nowadays is that a person accuses you of doing a (oftentimes, serious...) crime, and that's that. Sure, there may be a court hearing, sure there may be an investigation, but even then, people still automatically assume you are guilty and that you are no longer human, because you are accused. Another thing that really annoys me about this is that, even with alibis being there to back you up, you as the one being accused, has to go through the immense trouble of finding concrete evidence (yes, concrete, as in, actual, physical, hard evidence; not exactly just witnesses since like the accuser and the accused, they can lie if they choose) to support your claims of being innocent, when all the accuser has to do is make an accusation without exactly having to find such evidence and there we go, you are instantly guilty in various cases (maybe not in the eyes of the law, but i wonder if that could be said for the average person who doesn't exactly know you well, now eh?).
So, provided that one does not already exist (and if it does, then it isn't exactly being enforced much of the time, now huh?), I think a new law should be enforced. This law should state that "if you proceed to accuse an individual of having committed a crime, then it is YOUR responsibility to find concrete evidence to support your claims; the accusation cannot be investigated in full and be treated as objective and therefore as factual, unless you can provide the concrete evidence available for supporting it". Of course, in various situations, this cannot be properly enforced, if at all, but surely in the vast majority of them, it can, right? Now, of course, the accused will have to find relevant alibis to support their claims of being innocent, but the accuser also needs to do this as well (they can ask for assistance to do this, also).
Also...
In order to dissuade people from abusing this via evidence fabrication, I also think, if it hasn't been passed already, that there should be a law stating that "anyone caught accusing someone of a crime and producing false evidence to support their claims, shall suffer the consequences of their doing so and therefore will be punished in the most appropriate fashion available". Because seriously, these days law, order and justice is becoming a joke; people commiting crimes getting away with it, people lying about others committing crimes getting away with it, etc.
Or maybe we should just not do any of that and allow people to get the death penalty for spitting on the streets, since people who do that cause my mum a whole lot of stress due to her insane germophobic mindset.
It would appear that these days, mere accusations alone are enough for either or both an individual and a group of individuals to be considered guilty of a committing a crime and then being rejected from society, regardless of whether they are actually guilty of having committed that crime or not.
I mean, seriously, all that matters nowadays is that a person accuses you of doing a (oftentimes, serious...) crime, and that's that. Sure, there may be a court hearing, sure there may be an investigation, but even then, people still automatically assume you are guilty and that you are no longer human, because you are accused. Another thing that really annoys me about this is that, even with alibis being there to back you up, you as the one being accused, has to go through the immense trouble of finding concrete evidence (yes, concrete, as in, actual, physical, hard evidence; not exactly just witnesses since like the accuser and the accused, they can lie if they choose) to support your claims of being innocent, when all the accuser has to do is make an accusation without exactly having to find such evidence and there we go, you are instantly guilty in various cases (maybe not in the eyes of the law, but i wonder if that could be said for the average person who doesn't exactly know you well, now eh?).
So, provided that one does not already exist (and if it does, then it isn't exactly being enforced much of the time, now huh?), I think a new law should be enforced. This law should state that "if you proceed to accuse an individual of having committed a crime, then it is YOUR responsibility to find concrete evidence to support your claims; the accusation cannot be investigated in full and be treated as objective and therefore as factual, unless you can provide the concrete evidence available for supporting it". Of course, in various situations, this cannot be properly enforced, if at all, but surely in the vast majority of them, it can, right? Now, of course, the accused will have to find relevant alibis to support their claims of being innocent, but the accuser also needs to do this as well (they can ask for assistance to do this, also).
Also...
In order to dissuade people from abusing this via evidence fabrication, I also think, if it hasn't been passed already, that there should be a law stating that "anyone caught accusing someone of a crime and producing false evidence to support their claims, shall suffer the consequences of their doing so and therefore will be punished in the most appropriate fashion available". Because seriously, these days law, order and justice is becoming a joke; people commiting crimes getting away with it, people lying about others committing crimes getting away with it, etc.
Or maybe we should just not do any of that and allow people to get the death penalty for spitting on the streets, since people who do that cause my mum a whole lot of stress due to her insane germophobic mindset.
"Only when you have evidence, you report"
Yeah, trying tell that to the victim from the crime, murder.
I know it sucks but you can't take that away from other people when they are reporting actual crimes. Punish everyone else for the few? Now, an example, there are some reports of girls who falsely accuse guys for sexual crimes are getting away with 'light punishment' such as a year in jail (please correct me if I am wrong about this, the more you know). In this case, I think that the girl should definitely not serve just 1 year for messing up another individual's life. This is just straight up evil. They should definitely serve more than 1 year; they should serve the exact same sentence the falsely accused had to do or be put on some sort of record.
I know it sucks but you can't take that 'right' away from other people when they are reporting actual crimes. Plus there are steps that are taken before the accused is actually punished. Innocent till proven guilty probably only matters in the court of law. Now whether people want to follow that human right... is another thing.
1
reply
(Original post by 1Dudette4Ever)
I can understand that you are clearly frustrated with all these ladies popping up with the sexual harassment claims because that's the only crime that has been constantly reported in the news but...you can't take away one's 'rights' to report a crime. That will not solve the problem.
"Only when you have evidence, you report"
Yeah, trying tell that to the victim from the crime, murder.
I know it sucks but you can't take that away from other people when they are reporting actual crimes. Punish everyone else for the few? Now, an example, there are some reports of girls who falsely accuse guys for sexual crimes are getting away with 'light punishment' such as a year in jail (please correct me if I am wrong about this, the more you know). In this case, I think that the girl should definitely not serve just 1 year for messing up another individual's life. This is just straight up evil. They should definitely serve more than 1 year; they should serve the exact same sentence the falsely accused had to do or be put on some sort of record.
I know it sucks but you can't take that 'right' away from other people when they are reporting actual crimes. Plus there are steps that are taken before the accused is actually punished. Innocent till proven guilty probably only matters in the court of law. Now whether people want to follow that human right... is another thing.
I can understand that you are clearly frustrated with all these ladies popping up with the sexual harassment claims because that's the only crime that has been constantly reported in the news but...you can't take away one's 'rights' to report a crime. That will not solve the problem.
"Only when you have evidence, you report"
Yeah, trying tell that to the victim from the crime, murder.
I know it sucks but you can't take that away from other people when they are reporting actual crimes. Punish everyone else for the few? Now, an example, there are some reports of girls who falsely accuse guys for sexual crimes are getting away with 'light punishment' such as a year in jail (please correct me if I am wrong about this, the more you know). In this case, I think that the girl should definitely not serve just 1 year for messing up another individual's life. This is just straight up evil. They should definitely serve more than 1 year; they should serve the exact same sentence the falsely accused had to do or be put on some sort of record.
I know it sucks but you can't take that 'right' away from other people when they are reporting actual crimes. Plus there are steps that are taken before the accused is actually punished. Innocent till proven guilty probably only matters in the court of law. Now whether people want to follow that human right... is another thing.
Remember what I said here:
(Original post by Anonymous)
This law should state that "if you proceed to accuse an individual of having committed a crime, then it is your responsibility to find concrete evidence to support your claims; the accusation cannot be investigated in full and be treated as objective and therefore as factual, unless you can provide the concrete evidence available for supporting it". Of course, in various situations, this cannot be properly enforced, if at all, but surely in the vast majority of them, it can, right? Now, of course, the accused will have to find relevant alibis to support their claims of being innocent, but the accuser also needs to do this as well (they can ask for assistance to do this, also).
This law should state that "if you proceed to accuse an individual of having committed a crime, then it is your responsibility to find concrete evidence to support your claims; the accusation cannot be investigated in full and be treated as objective and therefore as factual, unless you can provide the concrete evidence available for supporting it". Of course, in various situations, this cannot be properly enforced, if at all, but surely in the vast majority of them, it can, right? Now, of course, the accused will have to find relevant alibis to support their claims of being innocent, but the accuser also needs to do this as well (they can ask for assistance to do this, also).
I am just trying to say that I do not find it fair that people can be accused of committing a crime, and people immediately assume they are and then reject them based on an accusation. Sure, treat them with supicion if you wish, but surely it isn't right for them to be rejected from society and treated as criminals until evidence and hell, even motivations are identified?
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Ofqual consultationTeachers to use 'mini-exams' and other work to decide grades
- Is it too late to do well in my A-levels?
- What Harry Potter house are you in?
- 2021 wellbeing blog launch
- Student tips on lockdown mental health