| JuryFury.com
Now Every 15th of the Month ! Online School of Politics |
|||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
Law & Enforcement Guilty Until Proven Innocent by Scott. C. Lomax There has long been a belief that the justice system works upon the principle that a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. In reality, however, the police, when investigating a crime, will consider suspects to be guilty until proven innocence. When being questioned the police will ask a suspect a number of probing questions, the nature of which depend upon the crime being investigated. If, to use a hypothetical example, a young female prostitute has been stabbed to death, the questions will include establishing the suspect’s whereabouts at the time of the murder, the suspect’s association with the scene of the crime, the suspect’s hobbies and interests to determine whether they fit the profile of a prostitute killer (heaven help them if they are unemployed and can be described as being a ‘loner’ as this will certainly increase the likelihood of further questioning), the suspect’s knowledge of prostitutes and the areas they frequent, the suspect’s appearance (if witnesses have provided relevant information) and other such questions that would make any individual, especially those who tend to panic easily, incredibly worried. During questioning a suspect’s body language will be studied. Whilst this does not constitute as evidence of any involvement in a crime if a suspect is seen to be worried the police will seize the opportunity to ask questions believing the suspect to be vulnerable. Questions can be repeated with a suspect being accused of lying if he or she does not provide an answer that the officer wants to hear. It is clearly important that the police should wish to thoroughly investigate a suspect. However, the probing questions often asked, even during ‘informal questioning’ show the police are often eager to capture anyone for the crime. We live in a world where governments and police forces are obsessed with crime figures. The consequential pressure results in the need for someone to be held to account. Justice must be seen to be done, regardless of whether innocent people go to prison in the process or the guilty truly pay. It is indisputable, when one considers the fact that miscarriages of justice do happen, that large numbers of people have been convicted and executed for crimes they did not commit simply because the police refused to investigate crimes with the concept of justice in mind. If for some reason you emerge as a suspect in the investigation your activities and past will be delved into until the police discover sufficient reason to consider you to be a suspect worthy of great consideration. At this time you could find yourself in a phenomenally difficult situation. If you look remotely like a person seen in the vicinity of a crime scene and your movements at the time of the murder are unaccounted for, how can you prove you did not commit that murder? Often you will not be able to and, to the satisfaction to the police, you could become prime suspect. The police have little evidence to suggest you are a criminal, but at the same time you have no evidence to prove you did not commit the crime and an absence of evidence in the hands of the police is not proof of your innocence. A chain of circumstantial evidence can be created that the police will claim links you to the crime. For example you might look like the killer, you might not have an alibi and there might be some controversial forensic evidence. For example, you might own a pair of trousers made of fibres of the same type found on the victim’s clothing. In numerous British trials such forensic evidence has been described as "compelling" or "solid" proof of a defendant’s guilt when in reality all it shows so that perhaps the murderer was wearing clothing made of the same fabric as that of the trousers. With the ‘evidence’ against you what can you do to prove your innocence? It should not be a suspect’s duty to prove that they did not commit an offence. After all, it is frequently impossible for an individual to prove they were not responsible. Imagine for one moment that a crime has been committed close to where you live. Unless you have a cast iron alibi it is unlikely that you will be in a position to demonstrate you had no involvement in the crime. At which point you may very well be arrested, charged, convicted and (if you live in the USA or some other nation where the ‘justice’ system advocates murder to those allegedly convicted of crimes) possibly be executed. It must sound an unlikely scenario, undoubtedly countless individuals would at one point have agreed until they found themselves victims of miscarriages of justice, but the shocking truth is that each and every one of us is vulnerable to the justice system simply because there is an emphasis upon the belief that suspects are guilty until proven innocent. About the Author(s): Scott Lomax is a student in England who writes on prison systems. His works can found at Liberterian.co.uk and Mojuk.org.uk. See under Our Contributors to find out about the Author(s) of this article. |
Yahoo! World News Headlines Our Winners Club Our Contributors Research Links Legal Advice ALL Awards & Internships Become an Activist Join an Organization Get Volunteerism Alert Write Letters to a local Politician Start your own Group Applied Politics Projects Suggest a Project Start your Yahoo Groups Get Internship Credit Funding for Projects Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Be In the Spotlight Let us Interview you : Authors of political books Activists Journalists Lawyers Law Enforcement Politicians Politican Scientists Be A Columnist Get Internship Credit Write twice a Month Get Heard Start a Yahoo Group Advertise with Us Books (Free) Political Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com |
|