That's the standard for our criminal justice system, not for us as individuals. It sounds from the release that the justice department has a boatload of compelling evidence against them.
There's a reason why the criminal justice system operates like that though. The system has been designed like that because it turned that it is a very good idea not to go on witch hunts or to assume guilt if you want a functional society. I'm not defending the person involved here, but it's important to remember that the presumption of innocence isn't just an abstract legal concept instead of a very important part of the social contract.
Surely the important distinction here is that the state has the power to imprison or execute people. In our day to day lives, we frequently make decisions based on things not proved to that standard, such as in job interviews or on dates. Presumption of innocence is very much an abstract legal contrivance, though it's insightful to see in what cases people suddenly decide it needs to be applied outside that realm.
I could literally watch someone pick up a gun and shoot someone. Technically they're still innocent until a court of law says they're guilty. But as an individual I don't need to wait to think they're guilty.
The question is where do you draw the line as an individual.
Non-lawyers often seem to misunderstand this phrase. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a statement defining the fact that in criminal cases, the burden of proof rests with the government. They have to present evidence proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; you don't have to present any evidence proving your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's all it means. Obviously judges are not supposed to come into a case assuming you are guilty, but you can say that about any type of case. The phrase certainly doesn't mean we have to pretend that you are perfectly innocent up until the point of verdict.
Do you think it is wrong for a person to believe OJ was guilty of the murder he was accused of? If a person decides to keep their distance from their new neighbour OJ and not treat them with neighbourly kindness and open arms because of that murder, would you admonish them for treating OJ differently for something he was never found guilty of in the court of law?
No, because in the case of OJ we have more than just what the prosecution (in this case, the DoJ) accused him of doing. My point isn't that you can't make your own judgment or that only court decisions are valid source sources of truth. What I'm saying here is that any opinion/analysis we can make at this stage are basically entirely based on the prosecution, since we don't have any other facts to go by.
Unless you already knew the people involved or we have some third party sources, we are basically just believing the side that only has 1 goal; showing how guilty the people they prosecute are. How could that mean anything else but assuming guilt?
(And honestly I think that personal feelings towards a person are very often good enough to make a personal judgment on guilt, but we don't even have that here! I'd bet most of us never heard of them before today)
It's not wrong for a person to believe anything and act accordingly. It's not even wrong to argue that we should not describe the accused as innocent (as long as you acknowledge what the official approach suggests before ignoring it). We are all morally free to treat OJ however we like (and everyone else is morally able to judge us for it).
What is wrong is for media organizations (which can be as small as independent reporters) to break expected traditions w/o acknowledging it. It suggests that this case is different (and again, it might be different) implicitly, which isn't ethical. You should either work within the prevailing assumptions of the system, or explicitly defy them in a principled maner.
> he presumption of innocence isn't just an abstract legal concept instead of a very important part of the social contract.
I don't think this is in practice true, as a matter of fact rather than an ideal. People don't, in general, behave the same with other people who are currently being prosecuted for a crime.
This certainly doesn't mean (most) people support vigilantism or witch hunts, or even that you assume guilt. However it seems clear the vast majority of people are fine with the idea that you might be "careful" with someone who is suspected of a crime, especially one being actively prosecuted. To the degree that many will claim they have a right to know this is happening, i.e. they will argue that news should be carried on this (although perhaps no editorializing). This absolutely is not the same as presumption of innocence.
Sometimes this is very unfair, obviously. But "the social contract" as it is practised seems to be pretty ok with that.
The reason is that the criminal justice system imposes heavy penalties for those convicted and therefore they have to be extra careful. My words have no real effect so I can convict anyone I like.
He's saying that the law presumes innocence until proven guilty. They don't throw you in jail or take your money until the legal process reaches a judgement, and this is pretty normal and uncontroversial.
But you don't have to keep going for drinks with a person who's just been arrested and let out on bail, you can make up your own opinion as you feel. You can say bad things about him before the judge does, you can deny them business opportunities, your kids don't have to play with his kids.
Disagree. You can make your opinion and you can take your precautions. But unless you were not directly harmed you should not “say bad things about them”, as you put it, just because they are a suspect in a case.
>Disagree. You can make your opinion and you can take your precautions. But unless you were not directly harmed you should not “say bad things about them”, as you put it, just because they are a suspect in a case.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Regardless of whether you "were not directly harmed" I don't see why someone should or shouldn't “say bad things about them."
Why shouldn't I express my opinion? Or are we in "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" territory?
I may be misunderstanding your point. If so, please do correct me. If not, I don't see why I (or anyone else) shouldn't express their opinion WRT anything.
What value that opinion may have can certainly be debated, but why should someone not express their opinion?
But you are not going by any other evidence than what the prosecution is showing here. Unless you have an insider perspective or were close enough to those involved, you don't really have anything to go by in judging their guilt than what the prosecution wants to show (and they will obviously be extremely biaised, that's the point!). So by de facto believing the prosecution, you aren't really doing anything else than assuming guilt.
You can obviously do that, but it makes little sense to do so when the system has been built around not taking what the prosecution says at face value or as a source of truth. The job of the prosecution is not to show the facts, it's to prosecute. Yes you don't have to go by the standards of the judicial system & presume innocence here, but why then use the prosecution's case when it only makes sense in the context of how our judicial system works?
Actually they are happy to take your money before the legal process reaches a judgement. If you aren't familiar with the process of civil forfeiture you might want to look into it.
Yeah, because if you happen to look at the evidence, the fact is that he took a gun across state lines, to "protect people's property" at a protest, and he ended up killing people, it would be pretty easy to come to the conclusion that he's guilty of at least manslaughter. Of course, he was charged with murder, and that's harder to prove. The fact that he was found not guilty doesn't mean he's innocent. It means he's not guilty of the crime they were prosecuting him for.
He's not someone I'd hire for anything, he's not someone I'd want my friends and family around. He's not someone I'd want attending any protest I was attending. He's not a good person, and he's a clear and present danger to society. These are the decisions that I, as an individual, am free to make because I'm not the government, and I don't have to abide by "innocent until proven guilty" for how I personally judge people.
> the fact is that he took a gun across state lines
This is the part that was unproven and goes against sworn testimony in the court. Supposedly, the gun was stored at his friend's house in Kenosha. There was no evidence he took the gun across state lines.
So, you're proving the above poster's point because you're assuming he took the gun across state lines even though there was no evidence shown to show that was the case.
Is this supposed to be a gotcha? It doesn't change anything from what I said. I didn't say I think he's guilty of transporting a weapon. I said I think he's guilty of manslaughter.
A minor taking a gun like that across state lines would have been a crime which you stated he committed by looking at a video. In reality, he didn't commit the crime of trafficking the firearm across state lines as a minor. You even stated "if you look at the evidence, the fact is that he took a gun across state lines..." which is not backed by the evidence, you just jumped to a conclusion that it was a fact and even worse repeated that it was a fact despite zero evidence and against sworn testimony in the case.
> 2OEH8eoCRo0:
> My experience was that people did not look at the evidence- they jumped to a conclusion.
You didn't look at the evidence, you jumped to a conclusion which is not based in fact, and broadcasted that you did this in your message. Thus proving 2OHEH8eoCRo0's point: people assume things about the case without looking at the facts.
> I didn't say I think he's guilty of transporting a weapon
You 100% did claim this when you said "the fact is that he took a gun across state lines".
In this case, "guilty" is the word that can take on different forms, unless you're saying that a video of Rittenhouse shooting someone is not showing him shooting someone. He still took a life, whether or not that was felonious, excusable, justifiable, or praiseworthy, to use Ambrose Bierce's quip.
Grand juries indict in >99% of cases. It's just a rubber-stamp. The grand jury only hears the prosecutor's side. They can say pretty much anything. Please find me a case where a prosecutor or LEO was charged with perjury for lying to a grand jury.
I've been indicted twice and both times the grand jury transcripts were just lies.
In fact, I got someone released after 16 months in jail on a burglary charge because their grand jury was lies. The story the cop told was a complete fabrication.
I think the commentor is stating that you and I have no reason to presume innocence until proven guilty. We can make up our own opinion. However, the judicial system has to assume innocence so the defendant can get a fair trial.
But not so much that they let them go. Quite often there is a very fast hearing within 1-2 weeks where a Judge decides to lock them up for 2 years without parole awaiting trial, because it's pretty damn clear they're probably guilty - enough initial evidence not to let them back out into society at least.
