Thread: Presumption Of Innocence

Originally Posted by echnidna

So the question, in this era of terrorists, is should presumption of guilt apply to all suspected terrorists?

I suspect not. Sorry I've tried to write the next sentence but it won't come out right, perhaps someone else can express it better. All I can say is presumption of guilt is very dangerous territory but so is a terrorist.

Originally Posted by echnidna

So the question, in this era of terrorists, is should presumption of guilt apply to all suspected terrorists?

Yes, but in countries where the presumption of guilt applies it is the Magistrate, who with your help, actually conducts the search for your innocence.

The police based on the initial enquiries makes the arrest and then the Magistrate takes over and directs and supervises the police investigation. So the police is subject to judicial direction in their further investigations.

Same effect as our system provided that you co-operate and help the investigation, but keeping silent will hinder your case.

Btw in most of those countries there are no juries only Magistrates and Judges decide your guilt, so guilty people are not usually let of by the defence lawyers bamboozling juries.


Peter.

so yer really don't wanna upset the beak

I suppose it works, they got the Bali 9

Originally Posted by echnidna

I suppose it works, they got the Bali 9

It works, as most of the world uses that system. Only England and their former colonies have the other system.

If Napoleon had succeded in his wars against England we would have it too for it is based on his code of laws, which he enforced on most european countries through his conquests.


Peter.

After reading this I decided to do a bit of research. Came across this from Wikipedia.

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course.

Link

This basically says that there is a presumption of innocence for all European countries.


The presumption of guilt does allow for someone or groups to be targeted. Look at the Haneef case. How does he prove that he didn't know that his cousin was a terrorist? And that he had no involvement in the UK attacks?

Originally Posted by Sturdee

keeping silent will hinder your case.

Ahh yes, "Anything you say will be written down and may be used in evidence againt you".

"Everything l say officer?"

"Yes, everything you say."

"OK, write this down: -
PLEASE OFFICER, DON'T HIT ME AGAIN, PLEASE DON'T!!!"


P

Originally Posted by Sturdee

but keeping silentC will hinder your case.

Yes, I would have thought so too.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

but keeping silentC will hinder your case.

Keeping a silentC? Why would you want to?

Yuk yuk yuk

I thought that was what the media is for..... sorry, couldnt resist.

Presumption of guilt is effectively what happens when the facts get reported, when there is no shock there is no reporting. The court of public opinion lives on half facts. Take Mr Haneef, we will never know, effectively he has been declared guilty by the minister. The Court case is only a show.

As for terrorists, the violent kind need to be located and dealt with, preemptively..., risky when you get it wrong..... after an event....., pity the political masters with the brief. I think when we allow the terrorist fear to get us they have already won. Western society is built on an ideal of personal freedom, at the very least the freedom to consume. When personal freedoms get eroded (including the presumption of innocence) they have won.

My biggest problem is the term "terrorist". By this I assume we mean a person who instills fear or terror. Broad bunch that one. Every "warning" from a pollie on any subject qualifies to some degree. Maybe we could return to the cold war, the enemy was well defined then, now we just get a warning that there is a "credible threat" and people get scared. I think its a control tactic and those pinpointed as "terrorists" are puppets to support the status quo. How many of the incarcerated "suspects" have turned out to be the real deal, I suspect we will never been given the facts.

Sebastiaan

Come on now, we all know that presumption of innocence is just a term that's bandied about to make people think that we are enlightened. We all know the real story. There's no doubt these terrorist types are guilty, you can tell just by looking at them. I mean, look at this Haneef bloke - he looks like a terrorist to me in that grainy black and white. And what about the picture of him in a jumpsuit hiding his head. What's he got to hide? Guilty as sin!

Now what's this about the minister for immigration? He's only doing his job. The two matters are not connected, he's just doing what I've been calling for now for a long time. Anyone who is a bit dodgy, looks suspicious, or talks funny should be banged up and deported. If they were born here, deport 'em anyway. What do we have the character test for if we're not going to use it, for heaven's sake?

Bloody chardy sipping bleeding heart liberals, the lot of 'em!

The presumption of innocence concept would be perfect if the purpose of the court was the search for the truth. Unfortunately.........

Originally Posted by silentC

What's he got to hide? Guilty as sin!

No Silent, show some compassion. He clearly isn't hiding.

That photo is a picture of a man in despair.

Do you blame him? He was being transported to his new digs, and they'd just told him that his new home is just outside....

IPSWICH!!

Cheers,

P

Well at least he wont get killed by tiles falling off the wall in the bathroom!

(Why do I always want to spell it IPSWITCH?)

Actually, the whole episode is turning into a debacle. Looks like they're about to drop the case. How do they keep getting things so wrong?

I admire the way Johnnie has handled it though. One of those times he probably thanks god for the separation of powers...