Innocent until proven guilty?

[Krystal]

Does it even exist anymore?

If you read a story do you refuse to say that person is guilty until they have been tried on a court of law or do you judge them there and then dependent upon what the papers write about?

And does it depend on the crime? I.E If it's a single middle aged caretaker accused of abusing a child would you be more quick to judge that person over say a woman accused of shaking her baby to death (because of past injustices)

Just wondering

 

[widowwadman]

Personally I try avoid judging somebody as being guilty of anything if they've not had a proper trial, as the media are quite good at churning out 'guilty' verdicts on dodgy grounds.

Nobody can tell whether the middle aged caretaker really has been the perpetrator or maybe just unjustly accused until he had a fair trial.

 

[Krystal]

Nobody can tell whether the middle aged caretaker really has been the perpetrator or maybe just unjustly accused until he had a fair trial.

Exactly, but most people do though don't they, vigilante mobs and the like show this.

I reckon most people are heavily influenced by the media. Shame - although I have to admit I sometimes think people are guilty before they are proven to be so

 

[*pud01*]

i think its human nature to think the worst these days, theres that many horrible things that happen and people you wouldnt of seen as the token criminal doing them.

 

[claire2711]

i only believe what the press reports if it is obviously true....e.g. FRITZL, and the millionaire who shot his family then burnt his house down.

if theres any doubt then i dont judge until trial or more evidence

 

[mummykay]

i think the worst, that way if they didnt do it (for a change lol) then its a pleasant surprise

im cynical tho, my dads a prison officer and my mums an a&e nurse so I no the nasty stuff that happens and I always think the worse case scenario first off about anythin in the news

 

[beanie]

Nobody can tell whether the middle aged caretaker really has been the perpetrator or maybe just unjustly accused until he had a fair trial.

Exactly, but most people do though don't they, vigilante mobs and the like show this.

I reckon most people are heavily influenced by the media.

I agree with this.

I do believe in innocent until proven guilty, and therefore do not agree with naming a suspect in the mediauntil he/she has been found guilty. Despite its shortcomings we have one of the best criminal justice systems in the world (and the fairest) and its mainly down to the fact that it is an adversarial process as opposed to the inquisitorial system like in mainland Europe.

 

[Krystal]

I agree suspects shouldn't be named Beanie. Especially when they are found to be innocent yet have been attacked by mobs. I know for most people they think that the ones who are guilty deserved to be named/shamed/attacked but for that one innocent person who has their lives destroyed its not worth it

 

[Sammystar]

I think that case of Robert Murat is a prime example of (mis) trial by media.