It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).
In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. The trier of fact (a judge or a jury) is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.
Under the Justinian Codes and English common law, the accused is presumed innocent in criminal proceedings, and in civil proceedings (like breach of contract) both sides must issue proof.
originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: chr0naut
Star for that post. There can be real legal reasons someone can't be charged with a crime even if they are guilty, although all of your examples are of law enforcement/DA's
overstepping their bounds, except #3 and #5. I don't see any constitutional dangers of indicting any elected official if they have been proven to have committed a crime. Guilty is guilty no matter their perceived or real station in society. The insanity plea is also very controversial and harder to argue. I agree with you in theory though.
originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: chr0naut
If the executive branch(any of them) is
caught operating outside of the law, I would rather they be prosecuted and charged with a crime than allow them to continue because it would be too difficult for the public to handle. Obviously, an accusation means nothing without evidence though. I tried to make that clear in my OP. Of course accusations will affect public opinion and confidence in an elected official, even if unfounded, if repeated often and loudly enough. Look at the state of US politics today.
originally posted by: chr0naut
It is clear that Mueller was saying that he declined to investigate in that direction.
originally posted by: tinner07
On the campaign trail did trump not say "lock her up"? and get his followers to chant the same thing? Yet not convicted of any crime.
How many on this site feel Hillary should be locked up? yet convicted of 0 crimes???
originally posted by: tinner07
On the campaign trail did trump not say "lock her up"? and get his followers to chant the same thing? Yet not convicted of any crime.
How many on this site feel Hillary should be locked up? yet convicted of 0 crimes???
originally posted by: thov420
originally posted by: chr0naut
It is clear that Mueller was saying that he declined to investigate in that direction.
I was under the impression he was looking for Russian collusion
but apparently he was looking for obstruction of justice instead. Who asked for the removal of the checks and balances of government? That's a new one for me.
originally posted by: chr0naut
What he was investigating, was looking at was any crime directly relating to Russian interference in the 2016 election and specifically around the Trump campaign...