It is widely known that, in the court systems of The United States, the court is to hold a presumption of innocence in regards to any defendant, hence the phrase “innocent until proven guilty.” However, it is also easily witnessed that juries and even judges sometimes abandon this practice. In the case of Coffin v.
In the case of the Robin Hood Woods murders, one can easily discern that evidence was insufficient to prove that any of the boys were guilty. Though this fact is almost universally agreed upon, the boys were convicted of the crime. Prejudice amongst the jury brought about the idea that these boys were the murderers and the defendants were unsuccessful in proving their own innocence, so they were sentenced to life in prison or capital punishment. The fact that nothing was proven and more lives were thrown away is absurd. The presumption of innocence in this case, like many others, gave way to a presumption of guilt, and the defendants were forced into a position where they had to prove that some physical evidence made them unable to commit the crime. In order for the court systems to operate in a legitimate manner, all defendants must be assumed innocent; otherwise, the innocent will be subject to unfair trials.
5 comments:
The system of justice in America that allows all suspects to be treated as innocent unless they are proven guilty displays the quality of fairness that America tries to extend to all its citizens. However, this process does not work in my opinion. The media is much to blame for this unfairness. The media portrays many biases that the mass of Americans can view and become influenced by. The jurors will also have been influenced by the media and will not be able to view the suspects as "innocent." Such as in the Robin Hood Hills murder, the jury already had its mind made up before the cases were presented due to the publicity. In order for a person to be thought of as innocent until proven guilty, the media must be stopped.
The idea of innocent until proven guilty is a great idea that I think I we should all strive for. Unfortunately that is not the case. I was personally surprised in the Robin Hood Hills murder that the jugde already had his mind up before the case. The fact that the judge had already made up his mind before he heard anyhting shocked me, and I was wondering how much this can affect the evidence that the judge admits into the court. His predeposition can greatly affect the way in which even the jruy views the defendant if the judge is inclined one way or the other. The media plays a huge role as well in the view that the juries have defendants. Hopefully we can achieve a system in which biasedness can limited since I don't think it is possible to remove it completely.
After reading your ideas, I realize how scary our government can sometimes be. In a world where so many things seem corrupt, it would be nice to trust that our court system will treat all citizens justly. I am glad to be exposed to this injustice because I often times assume that most of the basic priniciples of society are met, but this is obviously not always the case. I would like to think that our government is in favor of the people, treating them as innocent unless something proves otherwise. If this is not the case, something drastic needs to happen in our court system.
Innocence until proven guilty could be one of the most abused statutes in our legal system. It seems like it is nearly impossible to find an untainted jury pool, especially in high profile cases like the Robin Hood Hills murders. One of the majors factors in this is media coverage. The Duke Lacrosse case is a good example of this, in that the media and the general public convicted them before any real facts had come out. This type of injustice, where defendants are thought to be guilty before trial is so dangerous. But can you really restrict the press? Impartiality in the news is completely gone now with only pundits screaming platitudes left. This is a really interesting topic because its so vital to a fair trial, but legitimate solutions are so hard to come by.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is an idealistic notion that is hard to upkeep in society. It is sad to think that in cases such as the Robin Hood Hill murders that the defendants had to defend themselves by proving how they were not guilty, rather than the prosecutors proving why they were. The main problem is that the jury is naturally affected by their own preconceptions and also by the media. It is scary to think how an ordinary person could be thrown into the courtroom and forced to prove themselves innocent from a crime they did not commit, as in the cases presented in "The Death of Innocents".
Post a Comment