By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - World gone mad: People angry about "innocent until proven gulty"

Is due process supposed to be important? (/sarcasm>



Around the Network

So we are just supposed to actually lock people up because people accuse them. Proof of that has just become irrelevant. Alright let's do this, but run a pilot in the USA first to see how bad this idea really is.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Sexual harassment truly is a horrible thing unless you grab them by the pussy just right.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

If you've been accused you're more than 50% likely to be guilty. We can save a TON of time, headaches and heartaches for the victims and money by presuming guilt on the accused and forcing the defendant to prove innocence rather than the other way around. This IMO is the most progressive way of handling the legal system. So yeah if you've been accused of something on campus, to protect the potential victim we should treat you as guilty and allow you to try and prove your innocence afterwards.



contestgamer said:
If you've been accused you're more than 50% likely to be guilty. We can save a TON of time, headaches and heartaches for the victims and money by presuming guilt on the accused and forcing the defendant to prove innocence rather than the other way around. This IMO is the most progressive way of handling the legal system. So yeah if you've been accused of something on campus, to protect the potential victim we should treat you as guilty and allow you to try and prove your innocence afterwards.

That's assbackwards and defies logic. Who cares if it's a progressive thing to do. Grrr. What matters if it's the right thing to do. You're assuming guilt without due process. You might as be looking for witches to burn.



Around the Network
contestgamer said:
If you've been accused you're more than 50% likely to be guilty. We can save a TON of time, headaches and heartaches for the victims and money by presuming guilt on the accused and forcing the defendant to prove innocence rather than the other way around. This IMO is the most progressive way of handling the legal system. So yeah if you've been accused of something on campus, to protect the potential victim we should treat you as guilty and allow you to try and prove your innocence afterwards.

I doubt you'd promote this if you all of a sudden were accused of committing heinous acts.



Ka-pi96 said:
Aeolus451 said:

That's assbackwards and defies logic. Who cares if it's a progressive thing to do. Grrr. What matters if it's the right thing to do. You're assuming guilt without due process. You might as be looking for witches to burn.

It's only progressive if the word progressive is now synonymous with idiotic.

Although considering what other things are usually called "progressive"... that may well be the case

That's very true. I think my favorite bit from them is cultural appropriation.



contestgamer said:
If you've been accused you're more than 50% likely to be guilty. We can save a TON of time, headaches and heartaches for the victims and money by presuming guilt on the accused and forcing the defendant to prove innocence rather than the other way around. This IMO is the most progressive way of handling the legal system. So yeah if you've been accused of something on campus, to protect the potential victim we should treat you as guilty and allow you to try and prove your innocence afterwards.

As others have pointed out, this is the same as creating your own version of witch hunting. You can't just assume someone is guilty. If someone claims someone is guilty of something, it should be taken seriously, and there are processes in place to determine whether the person is innocent or guilty.

To claim someone is quilty without providing evidence and that claim being enough to incarcerate someone is not progressive. In fact, it is a giant step backwards. Just like the death sentences that happened to many people that ended up being innocent. These are not things that should be brought into the justice system. 



It's good they are ending these guidelines. This, as well as the whole "a woman has to be able to give her consent but a man doesn't" is just crazy. Women being so pure and innocent that they'd never falsely accuse a man of rape or women not knowing what they are doing when they have drunk sex (while men do) is exactly the kind of thinking that *actual* feminism wanted to get rid of decades ago.



contestgamer said:
If you've been accused you're more than 50% likely to be guilty. We can save a TON of time, headaches and heartaches for the victims and money by presuming guilt on the accused and forcing the defendant to prove innocence rather than the other way around. This IMO is the most progressive way of handling the legal system. So yeah if you've been accused of something on campus, to protect the potential victim we should treat you as guilty and allow you to try and prove your innocence afterwards.

It's pretty hilarious that people are interpreting this post as being serious.

It's less hilarious that once you get past their deliberately obscure language, this is basically what a lot of apparently very well-educated people believe. And it's even less hilarious that those people see themselves as "liberal".