April 25, 2013
-
Innocent until proven guilty?
The principle that one is innocent until proven guilty (presumption of innocence) has long been considered one of the bedrock principles of U.S. law.
Although not specifically mentioned in the U.S. constitution, many assert that 5th, 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution provide sufficient basis for the support of this concept in U.S. law. Supreme court decisions have also supported the principle.
Some believe that anit-terrorism laws of recent years have undermined this principle to a degree.
So what do you think?
Do you believe that people should be treated as innocent until proven guilty?
What about for terror suspects? Should they have this right too?
If you think suspected terrorists should NOT have this right, who do you think should have the power to decide that someone is a "suspected terrorist"?
Comments (6)
The FBI has ways to interrogate these guys. As you know while this young terrorist was in the hospital, they had they had the ability to question him without offering him his rights. IT was only a short time later, that he was offered his rights and now he seems to have wised up because he is no longer talking or offering information.
I guess if someone (s) blow up two buildings and they make no effort to conceal their identity, I am not sure we need to be so worried about them..
I am sure Constitution Activists will not like that ans want their rights protected.
Well, if they are foreign and we are at war then no. Now, if they are citizens then I am afraid so, but I would put someone on them 24/7.
Yeah... I'm going with innocent until proven guilty. It's a slippery slope, otherwise.
I do not like to presume anything - innocence or guilt! I have to agree with @Megabyyte - it is a slippery slope!
the dog is guilty. and thats all i have to say about it!