Since innocent until proven guilty is not in the text of the Constitution would you support legislation that passed that ended innocent until proven guilty? Why or why not?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=232615
This question is aimed at strict constructionists.
No, I consider provening the guilt part of due proccess. If I did not consider it part of due proccess but was the same in every other way I still would not support the law. The damage of innocent until proven guilty’s removal would do would be horrible. Enough innocent people go to jail as it is, Imagene how many more innocents would go to jail.
There would be no need to support such legislation, since ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ is a nice soundbite, but doesn’t mean a heckuva lot. If a judge determines that you are a threat to public saftey, or a flight risk, or whatever, they can impose bail on you, or imprison you until trial. But if everyone is innocent until a trial shows otherwise, why is the state permitted to imprison you or impose a fine of sorts on you? (Not that I disagree with the above practices!)
Guilty until proven innocent:eek: :eek: :eek:
I’ll take my chance the other way
To insure the person will show up for the trial and to provide reasonable protection to the public. It is not a punishment.
So as a strict constructionist you believe that some rights are inferred and not totally in the text.
That should have ended with a question mark.
Sure. But it is punishment, even if it is not intended as such.
‘Innocent until proven guilty’ is just one of the catchy phrases we throw around. It means that in a technical sense, yes, you are innocent until a trial determines otherwise. But as Orenthal James has shown, you can be ‘innocent’ and still spend about a year in jail. I don’t know about you, but being ‘innocent’ and in jail sucks about as bad as being ‘guilty’ and in jail.
Would O.J. have spent a year in jail if he hadn’t tried to run from justice? He was held in jail (not sentenced) to assure he would show up for his trial.
OJ was treated with due process, in accordance with the 5th Amendment. The fact of the matter is, the courts can deprive you of liberty without a ‘guilty’ verdict, so long as you are given your ‘due process’ rights.
Right, but would you support a state saying a defendent had to prove he was not guilty as constitutional if this was the state law?
Innocent until proven guilty is not part of regular law either in many cases. Regulatory agencies can fine you without proving anything. It is up to YOU to appeal that ruling and prove your innocence. The IRS also can take action against you without proof of guilt. The EPA can take property without compensation.
I just realized the OP said strict Constructionist, not strict Constitutionist:o. I thought the thread was directed at people who believed the Constitution should be stricktly enforced.
What is a strict constructionist?
That is not right.
Netscape, I think it is, sort of, right. Civil penalties, such as those imposed by the IRS and the EPA, don’t require a trial, although the accused can usually (always?) request a court hearing to appeal.
I work for an animal control department. When we write someone a $500 citation for multiple violations of animal control law, we don’t automatically schedule a court date. Indeed, if the person doesn’t submit a written request of appeal within ten days of receiving the citation, they forfeit any legal right to appeal.
This is very different from criminal cases. If someone violates a criminal statute (e.g., bludgeons a dog to death to entertain their friends), then we proceed through the district attorney’s office; the person is then innocent until proven guilty, and no penalties are levied unless they’re found guilty.
Daniel
I guess it could be right depending the conditions. I was in a worst case scenario frame of mind when I posted that.
There some problems that happen though. There have been many cases where someone was issued a ticket from a town far enough away it is actually cheaper to pay the ticket then it is to fight it to appeal and fight it, for example. I would like to add usually computer or human error, but rarely any bad intent causes these.
The OP is absurd. Strict constructionists believe that the constitution should be interpreted according to its text and/or the intent of the framers. It is a philosophy revolving around what is constitutional, not a philosophy revolving around what should or should not be law.
There are ample extraconstitutional sources of law. The most obvious are federal and state statutes. Less obvious, but no less real, are rules stemming from longstanding tradition and from judicial decisionmakinig – the “common law.” For example, much of contract and tort law comes to us from common law. Outside of rules governing the sale of goods (the UCC) and rules determining when a contract must be in writing (the Statue of Frauds), almost all of contract law is tradition- based. Ditto for tort law: although statutory law has changed some narrow aspects of the law of torts, most of it remains the purview of common law.
“Innocent until proven guilty” falls into this category. It is a tradition-based rule that is part of our legal landscape.
That doesn’t mean it’s a bad rule, or that it should be done away with. Strict constructionists aren’t concerned about the existence of such things; they do not believe, as the OP seems to think, that the constitution is the only source of law in the US. Quite the contrary. They do, however, believe that, given that the constitution can undo other sources of law – “unconstitutionality” is the ultimate legal trump card – the constitution should be interpreted strictly in order to pay due respect to principles of democratic decisionmaking.
Brutus is also correct, in a roundabout way, that the innocence presumption is also a constitutional mandate under the due process clause. There are cases establishing that due process demands the prosecution meet a specified burden of proof (“beyond a reasonable doubt”). Burdens of proof are a procedural matter well within the meaning of strictly-construed “due process.” Laying that burden at the feet of the prosecution has the indirect effect of making the innocence presumption a constitutional rule, even though the particular phrase does not appear in the constitutional text.
IIRC France works well with its method of Napoleonic law, although I don’t know much beyond the fact that they use that system.
Anybody have any examples from a “guilty until proven innocent” punishment system and how effective it is?
I believe in Russia you are assumed to be ~guilty after you are arrested. Let’s go ask Mikhail Khodorkovsky how the system is working.
BTW, IANA(Russian)L. 