It's Starting..Random Road Check Points, page 3

Originally posted by roxdog

Originally posted by Majic
roxdog: If you can tell me which document associated with the founding of the United States of America contains the words "innocent until proven guilty", I'll give you a Scooby Snack.

Most nations don't have a written constitution. This concept PREDATES the US constitution and to say the Founding Father's weren't forming a rule of law BASED on this concept is just silly.

This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.

www.usconstitution.net...

Of course, there was a point to my challenge, and here it is: a concept does not itself carry the weight of law. As such, it can be invoked, but cannot necessarily be considered a protection or defense at law.

While it is possible for a statute to be rejected on the basis of common law, it will more likely be found to supersede common law. Certainly the principle of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is embedded throughout the Bill of Rights and legal process, but specific statutory exceptions to it can be upheld, although thankfully this is uncommon.

However, the point is that (even though it would seem otherwise) "innocent until proven guilty" is not inviolate. It can be challenged directly by legislation. If done and accepted incrementally, we could see it fall.

The good news is that we're not there yet, but the recent and alarming example of Rumsfeld v. Padilla (O3-1027, dec. 6/28/04), the case of the imprisonment of a U.S. citizen without habeas corpus, provides more than enough reasonable cause for concern. The court threw it back on jurisdictional grounds. Padilla remains in custody indefinitely.

There is also precedent for denying habeas corpus, as was done during the Civil War, even though the Constitution specifically requires a writ of habeas corpus (but oh so importantly, "unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it", talk about a loophole!). As it applies today, the matter itself remains undecided. It may be decided that the U.S. government can detain any citizen indefinitely without trial! We should never get too smug.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a noble concept, but can be misleading. Some folks take this idea to mean that a criminal is literally "innocent until proven guilty". This is not true. A criminal is guilty the moment he commits a crime. It amazes me how often this crucial distinction is forgotten. Witnesses, misled by this fallacy, have even gone so far as to "not be judgmental" about the man they just saw murder three people. It's important to maintain perspective.

But getting back to my point, you could accurately summarize it to ultimately be:

The only rights you have are the rights you can defend.

As for the Scooby Snack, ah what the heck, I think you've earned it.