Innocent, until PROVEN Guilty

Do you agree with this stance in general?

I think it could be very subjective about what is PROVEN to people who judge such situations.

I am no law or criminology major, but I always wonder if there could be an alternative to this notion.

The alternative is Guilty until proven innocent. Seems clearly worse to me.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:The alternative is Guilty until proven innocent. Seems clearly worse to me.

That is the stance with Terrorists these days and before.

Look up some current cases in Guantanamo, and the famous Guildford pub bombings for case.

The reason the Innocent until proven guilty stance is used is because the reasoning is that its worth more to keep an innocent man from jail than to put a guilty one in prison. If a couple guilty people escape because of this then at least you did not a put an innocent man in the first place.

However, when it comes to something with high public attention like serial killers and terrorists, the public pressure on the government to catch and punish the guilty overturns the above reasoning. Suddenly keeping the guilty locked up is more important than keeping the innocent free.

if innocent till proven guilty doesnt exist in any country in the world (of my knowing) in its purest form because remand is a direct violation of innocent till proven guilty because jail is supposedly a place for only the guilty, yet if your concidred a flight risk or a risk to society your kept on remand in jail untill the conclusion of your case
and if charges are dropped or is your found innocent you get 0 compensation of course i dont think theres a system that would workbetter then bail/remand, im just trying to stir the pot