In the Eyes Of The Law, All Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

[WeDidIt]

The public is free to make its own decision and can set its own standard.

That's how a free society works.

Just thought I'd remind people of these simple facts about the law, the collective judgement of the public, and freedom.

[david13]

1. No. Wrong. They are not innocent, they are presumed

innocent. Do you know what a presumption is? It is a fiction. Let me remind you, it is a fiction.
dc

[WeDidIt]

3. But then my subject line would be too long

So I presumed everybody understood the presumption of the subject line.

[stray cat]

2. Unless a DUer disagrees or thinks someone is guilty? Isn't that there someplace?

[WeDidIt]

4. DUers are FREE to disagree or think somebody innocent in the eyes of the law is guilty

That's that whole publice being free to make their own judgements and set their own standards of guilt thing.

[Occam Bandage]

5. "The public is free to make its own decision"

within certain limits, yes. An employer cannot simply decide that a prospective employee is probably a felon due to his skin color and refuse him employment on those grounds, nor can I publish flyers claiming my neighbor is a rapist and distribute them throughout my neighborhood.

[WeDidIt]

6. The employer most certainly can do that.

What he cannot do is reveal that as the true reason for refusing employment.

And if your neighbor is charged with but acquitted of rape, you most certainly can make up flyers about the neighbor having been charged and subsequently acquitted and include your opinion that this is a miscarriage of justice, so long as you couch it that way.

[Occam Bandage]

7. That's nonsense.

"What he cannot do is reveal that as the true reason for refusing employment" is a bit like saying "I most certainly can buy and sell stocks with illegally obtained insider information; what I cannot do is reveal that information as my true reason for buying and selling the stock." In the example, the employer is unequivocally legally forbidden from making and following through on his own judgement of a prospective employee's criminal past.

I can make up fliers in which I say he has been charged and acquitted of rape. I can insinuate he is a rapist, to an extent. I cannot make up fliers in which I call him a rapist or say plainly that he is guilty of rape, even if he was convicted and the conviction was overturned on a technicality unrelated to the merits of the case against him.

Are these silly and unrelated to your point? Yes. Michael Jackson is a public figure and so there are different rules. But as long as we're throwing out declarations of what we do and don't have the right to do...

[WeDidIt]

8. Not so.

Prove in a court of law based upon the preponderance of evidence what a given employer was *thinking* when they refused employment to any given individual.

You cannot.

And furthermore, the standard for that preponderance of evidence has been made tougher due to recent SCOTUS decisions.

I'll even go further ans state that you would be surprised at how often employment law is broken and not one thing can be done about it. Probably as often as insider trading happens where not one thing can be done about it.

Regarding the alleged rapist, you are free to express your opinion about guilt so long as you couch it as opinion.

[Prometheus Bound]

9. So is Osama Bin Laden innocent at this point, then?

In the eyes of the law, that is.

[mmonk]

10. I'm not sure collective judgement can be equated with freedom.

However, the way it is supposed to work is correct, presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond the shadow of doubt. However, that standard has been shot to hell since 2001 and its demise is still with us even after the election.

[Berry Cool]

11. Actually, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is a finding required only for murder convictions

and not other crimes.

Otherwise, well, of course the public can make its own decision.