Posted on 02/21/2009 7:23:34 PM PST by kcvl
"What we've been told is that he's a sexual pedophile," said Haleigh's mother Crystal Sheffield. The child's grandmother, Teresa Neves, said Croslin described him as a "jerk" and she was worried.
"I couldn't tell you anything about him," a distraught Neves told reporters Friday, adding that she only knew of the cousin by his first name Joe. "I can't tell you how they could have taken her from a family that absolutely adores her."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
We are not a court of law and not bound by that principle.
I agree. Sometimes I try to reason and use common sense on these threads but....And I understand how they feel, you want to weep for that lost baby. But we are either a Nation of laws or we aren’t.
No. I missed that. I don’t have TV and only watch what’s online. Yikes! But he left his kids with her.
If society really had to follow the ‘presumption of innocence’ we would never arrest anyone!
Exactly!
You said — “If society really had to follow the ‘presumption of innocence’ we would never arrest anyone!”
That’s not true, because we arrest people on probable cause and evidence that the prosecuting attorney believes can get a conviction “beyond a reasonable doubt” with a jury of one’s peers.
I’m surprised you don’t know that.
All the while, during the time that one is at trial and before a judgement is delivered, one *is presumed* innocent under the law. That’s our system. AND, furthermore, many are declared “Not Guilty” too. So, there you go...
When I heard those two on Greta’s show, I got the creeps. The girl seems to be under the control of this guy, she seemed afraid to speak, but my spirit was really troubled. I feel they know a lot more than they’ve said, and maybe they’re the ones who killed her somehow. I hope they find out the truth soon.
You said — “Of course it’s usually better to let the courts determine guilt or innocence. However, we may soon reach the point where the courts will be too corrupt or inept to do this. Then we will have to do our own detective work...and the rest.”
That day will never come, as long as we have any kind of government at all. And if we don’t have a government, then we simply have mob rule and anarchy and then it really doesn’t matter, because at that point, whoever has the biggest guns will get the “rule of law” (that he sets up himself).
You better hope that the day never comes when we no longer have a functioning government, because mob rule is never just, never gets to the real issues and is more concerned with power and keeping control rather than justice. Under that kind of “rule” (anarchy, mob justice and rule) I can see much more child molestation than what we have at the present, and that kind of “anarchy” will protect the perpetrators of this kind of child molestation, because the ones who have the power and control will usually be the ones to commit the most horrendous crimes under anarchy...
You don’t want to look forward to that kind of “day”...
All the while, during the time that one is at trial and before a judgement is delivered, one *is presumed* innocent under the law. That’s our system. AND, furthermore, many are declared “Not Guilty” too. So, there you go...
I know that. I am not surprised that you would post falsely about me, though. AND
"presumed innocent" ONLY in the court of law.
Why do you not know that?
You said — “We are not a court of law and not bound by that principle.”
The law does not prescribe the types of opinions that you must have and in that way, you’re free to those. But, when your own opinions go against the very kind of government that many here whole-heartedly approve of (from our founding fathers and our system of justice) — then one has to question whether you really do adhere to those founding fathers’ principles or not. At the least, it’s hypocritical, saying that I give “lip service” to the principles laid down by the founding fathers for this country — but — I really don’t believe them or practice them myself... LOL..
However, with that being said — one *is bound* — by law — to adhere to the legal methods for addressing situations like this, which *does* happen to be by those founding principles — *no matter* — what your opinion is...
In the interview with Greta, she seemed scared, probably of him.
Right! And why do you admonish those that give their opinions as not following legal principles?
Honestly, how many little girls have to disappear from seemingly-illiterate unwed parents in Central Florida? And how many female teachers in FL have to hook up with 13-year old boys? I’m in Orlando & I can’t believe the culture in parts of this state. Deliverance - absolutely.
You said — “presumed innocent” ONLY in the court of law.
Actually no, they are presumed innocent *not* just “in the court” as a matter of some “legal wording” valid only for when a person sits in that courtroom and just in front of the jury — but — they are presumed innocent *period* — at any time prior to an *actual conviction* by a court. You see, it’s the *conviction* that *legally* (in all phases of one’s life, inside and outside of the court-room) ascertains that “fact”.
Prior to that time — you are *just as you were* as a normal person (of course, people do have to deal with bail, but that’s for purposes of making sure you appear at trial rather than any determination of guilt).
—
And then you said — “Why do you not know that?”
Well, it’s very simple — when you said — “If society really had to follow the ‘presumption of innocence’ we would never arrest anyone!” — it became clear that you didn’t understand how it worked...
You asked — “Right! And why do you admonish those that give their opinions as not following legal principles?”
I made that part (the answer to your question) clear in the subsequent remarks I made. It shows that one is *totally a hypocrite* for doing that — and at the same time saying that they believe in the system of government that our founding fathers set up for us and the protections of innocence until proven guilty by a jury of our peers. It shows the “lip service” only to the principles enshrined by our founding fathers.
Your “hypocritical opinions” — are — allowed, but they are criticized for being hypocritical...
Please. The phrase 'presummed innocent .....' has a very specific legal meaning valid only in the courtroom. I have every right to presume someone guilty before their arrest, before their trial and after their trial. For example, I do not presume that O.J. is innocent of murdering his wife.
You said — “I have every right to presume someone guilty before their arrest, before their trial and after their trial. For example, I do not presume that O.J. is innocent of murdering his wife.”
As I said, you have every right to your hypocritical opinion, while I have every right to criticize that hypocritical opinion, too...
First, the presumption is not a true presumption at all.[1] An objective observer in the position of the juror would reasonably conclude that the defendant probably committed the crime with which he is charged.[2] The observable facts clearly support such an inference—the defendant has been charged with a crime, is present in court, represented by an attorney and all the participants in a criminal trial are also present and ready to proceed.[3]
The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal instrument created by the law to favor the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals.[4] It is literally considered favorable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial.[5] It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion.[4]To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means:[1]
With respect to the critical facts of the case—whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime—the state has the entire burden of proof.
With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence this decision cannot be used against him.
The jury or judge is not to draw any inferences against the defendant from the fact that he has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on the evidence presented during the trial.
The phrase that a person is innocent until proven guilty refers to legal as opposed to factual guilt. In every case, the defendant either committed the offense or he did not; a fact that will remain true regardless of whether the jury acquits or convicts the defendant. The phrase means simply that a person is not legally guilty until a jury returns a verdict of guilty—which is little more than a tautology.
This duty on the prosecution was famously referred to as the “golden thread” in the criminal law by Lord Sankey LC in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462:
“ Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen—that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception... ”
[edit] The fundamental right
This right is so important in modern democracies that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions:
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: “Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal”.
In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says “Everyone is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty.” and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says “any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until their guilt has been established”. The jurors’ oath reiterates this assertion.
Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States
In the 1988 Brazilian constitution, article 5, section LVII states that “no one shall be considered guilty before the issuing of a final and unappealable penal sentence”.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence.
[edit] The presumption of innocence in practice
Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union affirms the right to the presumption of innocenceFew legal systems have employed, de jure, a presumption of guilt. Accusations of presumption of guilt generally do not imply an actual legal presumption of guilt, but rather denounce some failures to ensuring that suspects are treated well and are offered good defense conditions. Typical infringements include:
In some systems, suspects may be detained for long periods while inquiries proceed. Such long imprisonment constitutes, in practice, a hardship and a punishment for the suspect, even though he or she has not yet been sentenced. (See speedy trial)
Courts may prefer the testimonies of persons of certain class, status, ethnicity, gender, or political standing over those of others, regardless of actual circumstances.
In Europe and the Americas, prior to the French Revolution, it was common for the justice system to have suspects tortured to extract confessions from them. Even though the suspects had not yet been found legally guilty, they were exposed to considerable pain, often with lasting physical consequences.
Many public institutions such as universities punish members accused of felonies after they are indicted, even if they have not been convicted. An example is the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, in which the accused were suspended even though they had not been convicted.
Guaranteeing the presumption of innocence extends beyond the judicial system. For instance, in many countries journalistic codes of ethics state that journalists should refrain from referring to suspects as though their guilt is certain. For example, they use “suspect” or “defendant” when referring to the suspect, and use “alleged” when referring to the criminal activity that the suspect is accused of.
More subtly, publishing of the prosecution’s case without proper defense argumentation may in practice constitute presumption of guilt. Publishing a roster of arrested suspects may constitute undeserved punishment as well, since in practice it damages the reputation of innocent suspects. Private groups fighting certain abuses may also apply similar tactics, such as publishing the real name, address, and phone number of suspects, or even contacting the suspects’ employer, friends and neighbors (as an example, Perverted-Justice.com does so in order to shame suspected child molesters).
Modern practices aimed at curing social ills may run against presumption of innocence. Some civil rights activists feel that pre-employment drug testing, while legal, violates this principle, as potential employees are presumed to be users of illegal drugs, and must prove themselves innocent via the test. Similarly, critics argue that some dispositions of laws against sexual harassment or racial discrimination show a presumption of guilt. These dispositions were meant to ease the burden of proof on the victim, since in practice harassment or discrimination practices are hard to prove.
Civil rights activists note that the well-meaning practices so adopted may have a deleterious effect on justice being served. An example is the use in some sexual assault cases of a screen, which is set up to prevent the complainant from being distressed at the sight of the accused. Where a victim was in fact victimized by the accused, this may be argued to serve the principles of therapeutic justice [1] [2]. However, where an accused is in fact innocent, this may send a message to the jury that the court has already accepted that in fact a crime was committed, the burden of proof of which has traditionally been on the prosecution, and which furthermore is a matter of fact that is not for the court to judge, but rather, for the jury. Not only this but also even more importantly, such a shield may also send a message that the complainant is upset by the sight of the accused, once again because guilt is seen to have been assumed by the court in so shielding the complainant. The psychological effects of such a screen have not yet been well researched, but the tension between the two views is a problem for therapeutic justice, which must weigh protection of genuine victims from genuine offenders against the potential for an unjust conviction that such protection may create.[3]
wikipedia.com
First, my opinion is NOT hypocritical and second, you have the obligation to speak the truth.
Thank you very much ... when I first started to read your post I thought you were going to take offense over my comment (which of course you have a right to do so.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.