Perhaps these have factual answers to them. I’m not sure.
Are we, as everyday normal citizens, required (or even suggested) to adopt this code? Sure courtrooms must adhere to it. Newspapers can’t say “Conduit assuredly killed Levy” without getting sued up the wazoo. Sure, there’s no law against me saying “yup, that guy’s a killer.” But is there an ethical obligation on my part as an American citizen to remain impartial? Did the founding fathers believe that “innocent until proven guilty” was something everyone must believe?
Why is it “innocent until proven guilty” anyway? They aren’t opposites. You can be innocent AND guilty. You can have committed the crime and be not guilty. What’s up with this phrase?
Regarding the second question, I think they are mutually exclusive in the context of the legal system. You either did it, or you didn’t. Mitigating factors, degrees of guilt and so on are taken into account in the sentencing and the charges brought, not in the plea. If you were a party to a crime, but didn’t actually commit it, there are applicable charges that you can be guilty or innocent of.
And as to the first, I think it’s the mature and responsible choice to withhold judgement until sufficient evidence is accumulated. That, of course, gets into the question of how much evidence is sufficient . . .
Presumably U.S. v. Friday would tell us more about the specifics of the interpretation, but it’s Friday evening and I ain’t gonna bother looking it up.
At the same time, you can be presumed innocent in the eyes of the law and be guilty guilty guilty. So, no, you don’t have to be friendly to the guy you know killed his wife, but was acquitted.
It also doesnt allways work out that way. I was falsley accused of Aggrevated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, but even thought the DAs case was lame,and I had plenty of evidence, I lost my job, my home, bailbondsman fees, lawyer fees, and had to sit in handcuffs overnight without being allowed to even go the bathroom. It took two years for it to come to trial, and then 10 minutes for the judge to aquit me(we waved jury trial). So I was punished, regardless before I ever had my trial, and even though I was aquitted. Try getting a job with a felony case pending against you.
That russian guy on the loose right now - I’m sure all the news organizations will dot their i’s and cross their t’s by using “alleged” in all the right places, and yes, if we catch him he’ll be “innocent until proven guilty” but everybody knows he sliced and diced six members of his family.
Jack Ruby shot Lee Oswald on live TV… He was “innocent until proven guilty” as well, but let’s face it, he’s guilty as hell.
As bdgr points out, the presumption of innocence does not mean the system treats you particularly nicely: In actual practice, unless you got some real good lawyers and the money to pay them, you will spend a lot of time being treated like a criminal. And on top of it, even if acquitted you then have to worry about spending the rest of your life being treated that way by citizens who “just know you’re guilty.”
Under presumption of innocence, the State’s (Crown’s, People’s) accusation alone is insufficient to find you guilty. There has to be convincing evidence that you DID the deed. We tend to forget that there used to be a time when rulers could just on their word decree that you were guilty of some heinous offense and take your life and land.
And anyway, nobody is forcing anyone to “be nice to the guy you ‘know’ is guilty.” (and we don’t “know” he’s guilty – based on the information we have, which is much less than the jury has, we believe he’s guilty)
The answer to question one is: The ethical obligation of the individual citizen is to NOT join – or abide – a lynch mob. We are called to avoid prejudiced judgement (“hey, I don’t need to hear any more; you know them _______s are like wild animals”). And ideally to accept that the right of the accused to the legal arsenal available in his defense is A Good Thing.
On the other hand, if a private citizen, in the face of the information available, concludes Individual X is really guilty, the private citizen may socially shun Individual X, boycott his businesses, etc., but be careful that it doesn’t grow into a campaign to destroy Individual X.
