Guilty until proven Innocent...ahh shit, I mean Innocent until proven Guilty

[#hamler]

With today's media coverage of every single case in any city with a major newspaper or tv station, people really start to form their own opinions on such things such as major issues or more importantly, criminal cases. Magazine and newspaper covers distort, not only the truth, but the people's opinions of said "innocent" criminal.

For example. Below is one of the most famous mug shots of modern era.

The picture clearly gives a feel of convicted felon. People see magazine covers such as this, read the story and instantly think "oh, that fucker deserves to be fried". There is no privacy these days and we have gotten away from "innocent until proven guilty" that is garenteed in our (United States of America) Bill of Rights. There is no longer the feeling of that person could be innocent. If someone is found innocent of a major crime such as murder, armed robbery, or even manslaughter, see how hard it is for them to find any six figure job in the job market. No employer will hire anyone with relations to any kind of major crime.

For example take Michael Jackson. Accused of multiple counts of child molestation. He was tried for several months. In that several months tabloids come out with evidence collected that hasn't even been shown in court. People start to get the wrong opinion of the guy. He's found innocent later but still instantly outkasted from the public. No one would really hear from him until his death in 2009.

Another great example, OJ Simpson. Probably the most infamous case in modern history. We remember the historical glove and the whole "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" line. OJ Simpson, like Michael Jackson, was quickly outkasted and, in his case, seen as a Murderer. We wouldn't hear from him until his next arrest.

Point is, murderers will always be seen as murderers, robbers wills always be seen as robbers and the guilty will always be seen as guilty no matter if the outcome of the trial reads innocent or guilty.


Questions:
1. Why is it we always see someone as guilty no matter the outcome of a case? (Micheal Jackson, OJ Simpson examples)

2. Is this way of thinking influenced by anything in particular? Human nature? Media? What else?

3. Is it right to assume someone guilty before trial is over?


As always, a pic for troubles. Not the best.

Spoiler

Discuss this shit.

 

[Arkham Noir]

Questions:
1. Why is it we always see someone as guilty no matter the outcome of a case? (Micheal Jackson, OJ Simpson examples)

2. Is this way of thinking influenced by anything in particular? Human nature? Media? What else?

3. Is it right to assume someone guilty before trial is over?

Discuss this shit.

I think people hate feeling screwed over. Nobody wants to believe someone is good and than have them be proven to be a monster. As a result, people automatically assume the worst. That way, the worst that could happen is the person meets your expectations.

The other thing is that people love to look down on others as a means to make themselves feel superior. Whether it be assuming they are a cold blooded killer or someone on a wrestling forum bashing everything they see on T.V. , it's a way of making themselves feel empowered. We live in a very insecure society .


To answer your last question, no, there is nothing right about assuming someone guilty before they are given fair trial. If a person is found over a dead body with a knife in their hands and covered in the victims blood, obviously things get simple, but to automatically assume guilt on someone is flat out wrong.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

1. Why is it we always see someone as guilty no matter the outcome of a case?

I think that usually depends on the circumstances of the case. I mean, if the evidence is highly stacked against the suspect in question, it's only obvious that people would start to assume that it was him (or her) that was responsible for the crime. For example, if you have a person who is being suspected of killing a family member, and that person has no alibi as well as a motive for killing the said family member; would you not suspect him (or her) to be the criminal in the case you are investigating? Of course he would---that person would be your prime suspect if anything.

When the evidence is stacked high against the suspect, it's when people will classify him as guilty regardless of whether they are innocent or not.

Though other reasons could possibly be because of the said suspect's criminal records. For example, if a person is being suspected of a crime, and that person has records stating that he's killed before; it's quite obvious that that boosts the posibilities of that suspect being the one who commited the crime.

2. Is this way of thinking influenced by anything in particular? Human nature? Media? What else?

Media has a part to play in this in terms of how the news of the crime is spread. But an even bigger role that influences a person's opinion on the suspect in question are rumors. Yes, that's right. The gossip that is spread amongst the people themselves. If one person were to tell another about a crime that had occured. Chances are, the person talking would be giving his own biased version of the trial and crime. Now, when the person who heard this talks to someone else about the crime, it's only obvious that he or she would be reporting what the other person told him, if not an even more biased version of the crime.

Such rumors spread and spread to the point where the rumor starts to become a myth that will be accepted as common knowledge even though it probably isn't true.

3. Is it right to assume someone guilty before trial is over?

Sure, it's right. There is nothing wrong with making pre-court assumptions. But it's one thing to assume and another thing to blindly decide whether the person in question is guilty or not. Whether a person is guilty or innocent should always depend on the facts and not assumptions that are false. But of course, I'm just pointing out the obvious.

Alas, many people tend to make rash assumptions based on the cover of the book rather than what is actually inside it. They don't look at the facts; they just look at the person and proclaim him guilty or not guilty based only on what they have heard from others or the way they look.

It's not right, it's not logical, it's not justice---it's reality.

 

[LSN80]

1. Why is it we always see someone as guilty no matter the outcome of a case?.

We as human beings are tired of being screwed over. We're tired of extending our goodwill toward individuals only to have them burn us time and again. The appearance of evil and the fact that we as human are cynics and skeptics by nature hold onto the belief that only the famous truly get off, yet all are guilty. The appearance of evil and the fact that we've been burnt so many times before insists that we must frown upon these people.

Michael Vick burned us when he vehemntly denied that he partook in dog fighting. Lindsay Lohan has burnt us with all of her promises to "really get clean this time". In the case of my city, Ben Roethlisberger burnt the most diehard Steeler fan to the common person who just knew his name when he denied the rape scandal in Las Vegas, only to be caught in yet another one in Georgia. Despite his overwhelming popularity before, he was crucified both in the media and by the general public. Ben was never charged in both cases, and yet became the first player to be suspended in NFL history without any criminal wrongdoing being a factor. It was simply the appearance of evil. Ben was apologetic, repentant, and vowed to return to his Christian roots. To this day, most are still skeptical. Despite no criminal charges ever being filed, he was crucified, trialed, and found guilty in the worst court of all, the one of public opinion. Why? Because we've heard that song before, jack. We like to believe the notion that "All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing." So we do something, believing it right.

2. Is this way of thinking influenced by anything in particular? Human nature? Media? What else?

Human nature tells us that if someone has been charged with something, surely our fair and just legal system has gathered enough evidence against them that they must be guilty. Did anyone really give OJ the benefit of the doubt? I was maybe 12 at the time, and I surely didn't. Age and lack of understanding surely plays a role, but what does it say when a 12 year old believes someone is guilty even after their acquitted, despite not following it closely? Either it's human nature, or we were blamed to believe a certain way about something.

The media glorification and subsequent sensationalism of said crimes surely plays a role in it as well. From Mel Gibson to Lindsay Lohan, when was the last time we weren't given the imtimate details of the case within days of an incident? I can't remember one. And the idea and design of which the media covers said incidents, from large to small, leads us to believe the very worst about the person. As you stated, presumed guilty until proven innocent. Even if proven innocent, how many of us likely presume them guilty? Id say the vast majority. Why? Because we've been told from the outset by the media, be it directly or indirectly, that said person IS guilty.

3. Is it right to assume someone guilty before trial is over?.

Right? Surely not. Is that going to change anything in the near future? Dont hold your breath. Let me tell a story that illustrates my point.

The old mental health agency i used to run had some rules in place that I couldn't even touch that were put into place by the doctor who owned it. One of them involved any employee that was charged with a crime could be subject to termination.

Well, one of my employees, someone I had worked close with for 3 years, was involved in such a situation. She notoriously sufferred from massive headaches(think Percy Harvin- like migraines) and had to take headache medication on a daily basis. No big deal, right? Well, not so fast.

It turns out the headache medication contained opiates in it, which of course comes with the faous warning of being careful when driving upon taking the medication. Turns out, the longer one takes said medication, the more it builds up in ones system. So one day headed to work, her power steering gave out, and she hit some mailboxes. The police came to the scene, and asked her if she was on anything. Being honest, she said 'yes' and they asked her to take a field sobriety test. She failed due to not being able to follow a light with her eyes(due to her migraines), and was arrested and asked to take a blood test.

I was the one who picked her up from the hopsital when she took the blood test. She allowed me to speak with the police officer, and he released her into my custody. He didnt charge her in the there and now, and rather told her he would get back to her. She was honest and open about it, as she had called me, her immediate supervisor. Two months later, she received a DUI in the mail, it was printed in the paper, and despite my vehement protests, I was ultimately forced to fire her under the rules of the agency. Broke my heart. I wrote her a glowing letter of recommendation, but she was forced to work as a bartender for over a year, despite being cleared, making half of what she had made originally did until after the case was finally over. And for headache medication!

Certainly, this may be just one example, and Im sure there are many people who have been charged with crimes that are guilty that shouldnt be allowed to trample in the general public. But our legal system imprisons people "on suspicion of" charges every day, before they ever come to trial, which may be for months. Its a flawed system with flawed regulations. Its designed to protect the general public from those who commit heinous acts, but it does a bang up job of screwing up plenty of people's lives along the way who are innocent. Is this right, fair or really a shining example of the "justice"(an ironic if there ever was one) system at work? I think my analogy speaks for itself. Sorry I didnt get to this one sooner.