Posted on Sep 13, 2017
The Myth of the Presumption of Innocence | Blog
3.38K
36
16
6
6
0
Article Synopsis: The Constitutional principal that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is often misunderstood and is often the subject of conversation as to how someone could be charged with a crime for which there appears to be little evidence, or why they need to post bail to stay out of jail pending trial, if they are presumed innocent.
Eye Opening, for those who have never read into the topic!
I honestly haven't researched this before, but I have been reading through U.S. Code and the U.S. Constitution much more lately; but this makes much more sense. This article is quite eye opening from a basic citizen perspective. Any Lawyers have any different perspectives or experiences from this article? Capt Gregory Prickett
Eye Opening, for those who have never read into the topic!
I honestly haven't researched this before, but I have been reading through U.S. Code and the U.S. Constitution much more lately; but this makes much more sense. This article is quite eye opening from a basic citizen perspective. Any Lawyers have any different perspectives or experiences from this article? Capt Gregory Prickett
The Myth of the Presumption of Innocence | Blog
Posted from murrayphillipslaw.com
Law
Constitution
Knowledge
Law Enforcement
Citizenship
Edited 7 y ago
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 8
6
6
0
I wouldn't presume to alter or pile onto the information contained in this article. It is true so far as it goes. However, of greater interest to me is the presumption that so many make as to what is actually contained in the Constitution. Sadly, few really know. Few have taken the time to read it. Schools have largely dropped civics from their curriculum. Even those who should know, such as members of Congress, are among the most ignorant of all. When asked to explain the Constitutional basis of an a law they have enacted, they become indignant or laugh it off. So, before anyone assumes what the Constitution says on any matter, they really should take a moment and look.
(6)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Capt Gregory Prickett - Well, most people "would be shocked" if they actually read the Constitution.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Capt Gregory Prickett - We better stop now. I don't think my system can stand the shock of agreeing with you any more
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Police Officer Vs. Drone Pilot: Is the cop or is the guy right? what do u think?
Police Officer Vs. Drone Pilot: Is the cop or is the guy right? what do u think? https://www.facebook.com/groups/436984369834761/ This not my original footag...
CPT Jack Durish -
Much Agreed!
I tend to rely on source documents for everything, as well as over-analyze things (or so i'm accused of), and I find parts of the Constitution to be quite ambiguously written. It sounds great from the perspective of leaving it open ended for the sake of interpretation, but some interpretations cab be wild over the course of time. Then there are the issues of Case Law precedence affecting the applicability of the original text of certain Articles/Amendments, but those not being easily found, unless one knows to look for them.
In my opinion, I don't know if there is a good time to teach any type of "Rulebook" sort of class any more in-depth than a brief overview. People, especially kids, just don't rarely seem to care, until it matters. Although, I'll be teaching my kids this type of stuff at home, or at the very least augmenting whatever the school teaches, once they are of proper age.
Even as adults, its difficult to get Soldiers to read into parts of Regulations/UCMJ, or to get civilians to know the parts of State/Federal law. Yet, we must Enforce and/or be punished by them, and have no clue what they are or what Rights we have. I've seen NCO's try to enforce completely non-existent, barracks lawyer version of a regulation on Soldiers, but because NCO's have authority, are trusted, and the Soldier's didn't know any better, they complied. I found a professional way to correct the NCO without embarrassing him in front of the Soldiers, but also not let the Soldiers walk away being completely misinformed.
The dwindling of Civics as you noted, has a two-sided affect; on the citizens not knowing, thus allowing themselves to be abused, assuming if its happening, then it must be allowed, and on other parts of those same citizens who later join law enforcement. There will always be those who take themselves more seriously than others, learning the laws, and applying them judiciously. Then there are others who will make the good LEs/NCOs look bad, by remaining ill-informed, and when they finally encounter a well informed citizen/junior Soldier who challenges their wrongful knowledge of the law/regulation, and cites correct case law/regulation/constitutional amendment/ordnance, said LE/NCO MAY resort to intimidation tactics or creating other real problems, rather than conceding they were wrong, and letting them move along.
I'm not bashing on any profession, just noting this as a PEOPLE issue, and particulary, people in positions of authority.
Here a loose example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYZXn1-jlL4
Much Agreed!
I tend to rely on source documents for everything, as well as over-analyze things (or so i'm accused of), and I find parts of the Constitution to be quite ambiguously written. It sounds great from the perspective of leaving it open ended for the sake of interpretation, but some interpretations cab be wild over the course of time. Then there are the issues of Case Law precedence affecting the applicability of the original text of certain Articles/Amendments, but those not being easily found, unless one knows to look for them.
In my opinion, I don't know if there is a good time to teach any type of "Rulebook" sort of class any more in-depth than a brief overview. People, especially kids, just don't rarely seem to care, until it matters. Although, I'll be teaching my kids this type of stuff at home, or at the very least augmenting whatever the school teaches, once they are of proper age.
Even as adults, its difficult to get Soldiers to read into parts of Regulations/UCMJ, or to get civilians to know the parts of State/Federal law. Yet, we must Enforce and/or be punished by them, and have no clue what they are or what Rights we have. I've seen NCO's try to enforce completely non-existent, barracks lawyer version of a regulation on Soldiers, but because NCO's have authority, are trusted, and the Soldier's didn't know any better, they complied. I found a professional way to correct the NCO without embarrassing him in front of the Soldiers, but also not let the Soldiers walk away being completely misinformed.
The dwindling of Civics as you noted, has a two-sided affect; on the citizens not knowing, thus allowing themselves to be abused, assuming if its happening, then it must be allowed, and on other parts of those same citizens who later join law enforcement. There will always be those who take themselves more seriously than others, learning the laws, and applying them judiciously. Then there are others who will make the good LEs/NCOs look bad, by remaining ill-informed, and when they finally encounter a well informed citizen/junior Soldier who challenges their wrongful knowledge of the law/regulation, and cites correct case law/regulation/constitutional amendment/ordnance, said LE/NCO MAY resort to intimidation tactics or creating other real problems, rather than conceding they were wrong, and letting them move along.
I'm not bashing on any profession, just noting this as a PEOPLE issue, and particulary, people in positions of authority.
Here a loose example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYZXn1-jlL4
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Exactly right. The machinery of prosecution is huge, cumbersome, and a juggernaut. The criminal justice system is designed to prosecute and convict, NOT find the Truth, or "Justice." It is abundantly clear that these days, you only get the amount of "justice" that you can afford. This is why the rich walk, and the poor and even middle class end up imprisoned or copping a plea.
The Public Defender is most likely a kid right out of law school, on his/her first job as an attorney, and is attempting to keep his or her head above water by disposing of cases as quickly as possible. You see, there are not enough Public Defenders and too many cases on the docket. The court cannot possibly try every case, so prosecutors (who are usually a lot more skilled and experienced than the Public Defender) attempt to secure a plea deal rather than go to trial. So right from the outset, a defendant who is not wealthy is at a marked disadvantage. Most defendants sadly do opt for a plea deal, even if they are 100% innocent, rather than spend the time and money going to trial. Trials are long, drawn-out affairs that keep people in legal limbo, as well as cost huge amounts of money for legal defense. It is a sad commentary on our criminal justice system when it is more "convenient" to admit guilt and be done with the affair than to pursue true Justice, which could easily bankrupt one in very short order. Even then, there is no guarantee of acquittal, as the author points out, the jury members have been winnowed down to those who have no reason to sympathize with you.
The author didn't touch on this, but the Prison-Industrial Complex is in play as well. As more and more prisons and jails are run by contractors, it is in the interests of both the state and the contractor to keep the beds filled. The state pays for all the beds, regardless of them being filled or empty. The contractor gets paid either way. So the state seeks to incarcerate as many people as possible in order to get the best "value" out of their investment. This is where the prison contractors and their lobbyists go to the state or federal capitol and lobby for more things to be criminalized, and for longer incarceration terms. As both the state and the contractors both benefit from full prisons, more and harsher laws are written. These new laws equate to more arrests and more incarceration for longer terms. The politicians can then tell the public that they are for Justice and are tough on crime. Thus more motivation for the state to prosecute and incarcerate you.
The Public Defender is most likely a kid right out of law school, on his/her first job as an attorney, and is attempting to keep his or her head above water by disposing of cases as quickly as possible. You see, there are not enough Public Defenders and too many cases on the docket. The court cannot possibly try every case, so prosecutors (who are usually a lot more skilled and experienced than the Public Defender) attempt to secure a plea deal rather than go to trial. So right from the outset, a defendant who is not wealthy is at a marked disadvantage. Most defendants sadly do opt for a plea deal, even if they are 100% innocent, rather than spend the time and money going to trial. Trials are long, drawn-out affairs that keep people in legal limbo, as well as cost huge amounts of money for legal defense. It is a sad commentary on our criminal justice system when it is more "convenient" to admit guilt and be done with the affair than to pursue true Justice, which could easily bankrupt one in very short order. Even then, there is no guarantee of acquittal, as the author points out, the jury members have been winnowed down to those who have no reason to sympathize with you.
The author didn't touch on this, but the Prison-Industrial Complex is in play as well. As more and more prisons and jails are run by contractors, it is in the interests of both the state and the contractor to keep the beds filled. The state pays for all the beds, regardless of them being filled or empty. The contractor gets paid either way. So the state seeks to incarcerate as many people as possible in order to get the best "value" out of their investment. This is where the prison contractors and their lobbyists go to the state or federal capitol and lobby for more things to be criminalized, and for longer incarceration terms. As both the state and the contractors both benefit from full prisons, more and harsher laws are written. These new laws equate to more arrests and more incarceration for longer terms. The politicians can then tell the public that they are for Justice and are tough on crime. Thus more motivation for the state to prosecute and incarcerate you.
(6)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
A lot of people blame private prisons for this but are they really any worse than public prisons who are controlled by unions? Even when prison populations drop public unions lobby against closing prisons or reducing the amount of corrections officers assigned to any given prison. I just finished reading the book "Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration—and How to Achieve Real Reform" by John Pfaff. It has a pretty good summary of why private prisons do not cause mass incarceration any more than public ones do.
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
SSgt (Join to see) - Privatized prisons do not "Cause" mass incarceration, that's true, but they certainly do provide the financial (and some say social) incentive to fill them. Privatized prisons are gaining in popularity, as they are a money-making enterprise for contractors, and if a privatized prison guard screws up, the state bears no legal liability. State prisons require Corrections Officers to be trained to a standard. Private prisons may or may not require some type of training or experience. This can lead to misconduct in private prisons.
When new private prisons open up, there is an expectation that they will be filled. That's where the "incentive" to fill them comes in; there is money attached to every bed in every privatized prison. Why do you think there is such a push for marijuana to remain illegal? Victimless crimes produce more arrests which translate into more filled beds in private prisons.
When new private prisons open up, there is an expectation that they will be filled. That's where the "incentive" to fill them comes in; there is money attached to every bed in every privatized prison. Why do you think there is such a push for marijuana to remain illegal? Victimless crimes produce more arrests which translate into more filled beds in private prisons.
(4)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SSG(P) (Join to see) - Read the book I recommended it will probably change your opinion. Public prisons have just as much incentive to stay full as private ones do as if they have their population reduced some would need to be closed down or have corrections officers fired because of not being needed but unions do a pretty good job at making sure neither of those things happen. Any prison that is opened is done so with the expectation that it will be filled, public or private. If I had not returned the book to the library this past weekend I would tell you the statistics but private prisons make up a very small portion of the total prisons/ inmates in the US judicial system.
Even public prisons, at least when you include jails since they house a very large percentage of all US inmates, do not always "require some type of training or experience." Both depend on the jurisdiction, urban or state run systems usually have higher standards but county jails also house inmates and less populated areas do not always have enough money or the population to maintain strict standards of education/ training. To be accredited by ACA or AJA the prison/ jail must meet certain requirements but that is not the same for all of their officers.
I have personally heard a director of a prison system tell his people that even though the population for their system dropped no prisons would be closed nor corrections officers let go so no one needed to worry about losing their job. Since public prisons make up a much larger percentage of prisons in the US and hold the majority of the inmates public unions have much more sway over maintaining populations than private corporations do.
As far as marijuana remaining illegal, that is because the government thinks they know what is best for us better than we do. Private prisons do not get anywhere as much money as local counties do from their prosecution. You know how many of those victimless crimes do not result in a jail/ prison sentence? Very few. Most result in probation where the convicted person has to pay the county court fees, probation fees, alcohol/ drug awareness class fees, and then court fees again at the end of the process showing they successfully completed the prescribed course of treatment.
The government should have no business regulating what people do to their own bodies, and this goes beyond marijuana in my opinion. If you want to do meth, heroin, or whatever go ahead, just do not expect the government to take care of your medical bills if you have issues because of using substances that damaged your body.
Even public prisons, at least when you include jails since they house a very large percentage of all US inmates, do not always "require some type of training or experience." Both depend on the jurisdiction, urban or state run systems usually have higher standards but county jails also house inmates and less populated areas do not always have enough money or the population to maintain strict standards of education/ training. To be accredited by ACA or AJA the prison/ jail must meet certain requirements but that is not the same for all of their officers.
I have personally heard a director of a prison system tell his people that even though the population for their system dropped no prisons would be closed nor corrections officers let go so no one needed to worry about losing their job. Since public prisons make up a much larger percentage of prisons in the US and hold the majority of the inmates public unions have much more sway over maintaining populations than private corporations do.
As far as marijuana remaining illegal, that is because the government thinks they know what is best for us better than we do. Private prisons do not get anywhere as much money as local counties do from their prosecution. You know how many of those victimless crimes do not result in a jail/ prison sentence? Very few. Most result in probation where the convicted person has to pay the county court fees, probation fees, alcohol/ drug awareness class fees, and then court fees again at the end of the process showing they successfully completed the prescribed course of treatment.
The government should have no business regulating what people do to their own bodies, and this goes beyond marijuana in my opinion. If you want to do meth, heroin, or whatever go ahead, just do not expect the government to take care of your medical bills if you have issues because of using substances that damaged your body.
(1)
(0)
SSG Clayton Blackwell
False, prosecutors are not generally much more skilled. Very few of the prosecutors stay at the prosecutors office more than 5 years. Most of them get there experience either at the DA's office, or the public defender, then move on to private practice where all the money is. The senior prosecutors move into administrative roles and the new kids are the one's trying the cases, unless you are talking about homicide cases. The system is flawed, but the slant is very much in favor of the defendant. Which again, it should be, but they prosecutorial system is not big machine that rolls over a bunch of innocent people.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
SFC (Join to see) There is more to it even than the article states. Public Defenders are not only overburdened, but they also have superiors to answer to. The amount of time that an accused individual gets with their "court appointed attorney" is minimal. Prosecutors want a win, defenders want to clear their case loads. Not exactly something to give a person warm and fuzzy feelings as to a fair trial. I was sitting for Jury Duty. It was a death penalty case. Before even being moved to the interview stage, I had to complete a ten page questionnaire. Once that was completed a couple of hours later some of us were selected for the Jury Pool. The first question I was asked was "If the judge asked you right now to deliver a verdict, how would you vote?" It took me by surprise, but I answered "Not Guilty" I was surprised that the prosecutor would ask a potential juror about guilty or innocent when they were just putting the Jury together. I was dismissed from the Jury as I was taking a trip which would they expected the trial would end on that date. The point is that an accused person may have presumption of innocence in trial, but even still they better prepare for the trial as if they are presumed guilty.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google