attila wrote:
In <199609290133.UAA00319@smoke.suba.com>, on 09/28/96 at 08:33 PM, snow <snow@smoke.suba.com> said:
A Person going by the name Attila said: to put it another way: in criminal procedings: I would rather be considered guilty, until proven innocent; than I would be presumed innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
=If you were the person being _tried_ for a crime, you would rather =have to prove that you COULDN'T POSSIBLY have commited the crime as =opposed to having to have the government PROVE that you DID DO it?
you bet --the objective of the defense is to cast aspersions on the government prosecuters --in other words, create that doubt. you do not need to prove your innocence unconditionally, just "taint" the prosecuter a bit. however, in many cases you are guaranteed a trial by a jury of your peers. as for peers --look at OJ, and the reverse weighting of the Santa Monica jury v. downtown.
Speaking of peers, what would the founding fathers have said about the trial of the officers in the Rodney King case? Would they, as police officers, have a right to a jury of their peers? Would their peers be the people in Simi Valley, where many or most of them live? Or would it be more appropriate to have a jury of the victims' peers? Or both?