why is it that we are now guilty until proven innocent?
552337
It depends on how much money is involved or how little is not
1147516
Innocent until proven guilty, idiot.
1021060
Because someone or something has to be blamed so that the guilt will be lessen on their part. It's easy to blame God, it's all His fault...is a quick escape. But don't worry God is innocent. He's not the one responsible for our choices but us alone.
768361
Because the prosecutors don't normally try someone unless they believe they have the evidence to prove it.  So if someone is up for trial, there are good chances they are guilty.
847643
Anyone can get all those info (except for court dates, you can get those any time) AFTER the verdict has been delivered. If you get it before, then the defense counsel can argue tainted witness testimony and the whole case can be flushed down leading to a not guilty verdict.
507553
yes, i was wrongly accused once...a work thing(exonerated)...guess that makes up for private-life-things i've gotten away with
469317
because no one is innocent! have you ever lied??? have you ever made ANYTHING suffer?? like an ant??, it's karma man, and it applies to every living thing, not just to humans...
571083
When I'm conducting an investigation, I might refer to the subject's criminal history to see what they've done before.  If I see an arrest (but no conviction) for sexual assault, for example, then my opinion of the person is that, okay...maybe this guy did it before, and he might be the right guy this time.\n\nIf I see an arrest, but then a not guilty verdict, I still tend to think the guy was good for it then and might be good for it today.  Just being found not guilty does not mean the person didn't do the crime...it can mean that, and it can also mean a dozen other things.\n\nIf I see a conviction, then I am pretty comfortable saying the guy did it then, and he might well have done it today.\n\nI think reasonable investigators realize that just because you've been arrested for something does not necessarily mean you were guilty of the crime you were arrested for...that's not the standard used for making an arrest. \n\nHowever, I have seen very few people in my career that have been arrested for something they truly didn't do...so seeing an arrest on a criminal history printout is, in my mind, almost as good as seeing a conviction.\n\nBUT...and before anyone goes beserk over this...what I think in my mind means nothing to proving a case.  I might think and feel very strongly that my crook did this particular burglary because he's been arrested for it before, but what I think is not evidence.  If I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime, all the past arrests (without convictions) in the world aren't going to amount to anything.  They'll make me suspicious as can be, but they don't add up to guilt.\n\nHope that's the answer you were looking for.  An interesting question!
166524
It means the court found the person innocent of the charges.
447752
It's very possible. Sometimes the guilty will deflect the issue by trying to put it on someone else first.
813367
Is a man not innocent till proven guilty here. He has admitted to wrong doing but denies homosexuality. Why do so many act as if its true when there is no proof as yet?
319656
A not guilty verdict is not a proclamation of innocence.  A civil court did not find him guilty but they did find him liable.  At this point does it really matter?  This verdict forced the majority of Americans to admit something that minorities have been saying for decades, that the justice system is deeply flawed on both a racial bias and a class bias.  Pundits were saying there was no way cops would plant evidence but cops have historically committed atrocious acts (e.g. Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima, Rampart, Mississippi Burning 1964).  Is he innocent?  Only he knows now.
141370
I feel for your situation.  Our justice system is totally messed up - I don't believe in the system especially the words "innocent until proven guilty".  I do understand plea deals for "lesser" sentences when offering information like accomplises and such, but to have to plead guilty when you are innocent is just wrong.  And I don't know why the justice system allows all the lying and entrapment.\n\nGood luck to you.
355936
It's impossible to know without knowing the crime or the defendant. Perhaps the defendant was similar to yourself. Prosecutors like to avoid having jurors who can identify with the defendants. Makes for acquittals and hung juries.
717745
Proof, in a criminal case is establishing guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.  It is not propaganda, but established fact.
1016529
Because a criminal trial has a different standard for guilt or innocence ("beyond a reasonable doubt") as opposed to the standard for a civil lawsuit ("preponderance of the evidence" or basically, which side has the better evidence).  If OJ had lost the criminal trial, then he would have been liable civilly because he had already lost on the higher standard of proof.  But he didn't.\n\nDana, practicing lawyer
558736
Yes, we do hear stories of people wrongly accused but that is truly the exception and not the norm.  After having spent the last five years as a litigator, I can honestly say that I have great faith in the jury system in this country.  Juries almost always get it right.  \n\nFor your edification, despite what we see on t.v., circumstantial evidence is not faulty evidence.  Almost every case is going to be circumstantial as crimes rarely have strong, independent eyewitnesses.  Most people do their crimes in private.  \n\nHere's a good example.  You go to bed one night, look out your window and see your garden shining in the moonlight.  The next morning you wake up and see a blanket of snow over your garden that was not there last night.  You didn't personally see the snow fall.  However, the snow on the ground is circumstantial evidence of it having snowed last night.  the fact that you have no direct eyewitness evidence does not mean that the evidence of snowfall is any less persuasive.  \n\nThat having been said, don't let the media's attention on so-called wrongly convicted felons make you jaded.  We have the best system in the world.  Its accuracy rate is phenomenal.  If you don't believe me, go sit in on a criminal trial sometime.  The courtrooms are open to the public.  To watch our justice system in action is awe inspiring.  Go watch.  You'll see that the system really does work very well.\n\nNot to say that it is flawless but it sure is good.\n\nNow, the civil system -- that's a joke.  But that's a different story all together.