do you think we should presume people are innocent until proven guilty?
603715
Thomas Jefferson said, "It is better that a thousand guilty men walk free, than a single innocent man be imprisoned". If more people truly understood the great moral clarity of our Founders, the citizens of our Republic would elect better people to serve them.
384033
Do you plan on commiting this crime, or have you done so already?
474009
Let's wait to see if anyone's convicted before we start judging.  From what we have heard in the news media there are too many holes that need filled in.  \n\nIf someone is convicted hang 'em but let us extend the same courtesy that we would like to have if we were accused of a crime
541830
There has been a lot on the news lately about DNA proving people innocent. I'm all for that but, like you, believe if someone commits a crime that requires the death sentence that's what they should get. Death. When you have someone confess to a murder and relates the details and is able to take you to the body what else do we need to know? I also don't believe the inmate should know when they're going to die. Their victim(s) (in case of murderers) didn't know when they were going to die and have time to tell their family that they loved them and see them one more time. Unfortunately, we can't punish the guilty inmate without punishing his innocent family. \n\nI would, however, like to see a plan implemented that would make use of prisoners for life or death row inmates to be utilized to test affects of new products and drugs for human consumption. I have never believed in using animals for testing. If you want to know how a product affects a human then test it on a human. No more guessing at what's going on. A human can verbalize what an animal can't. Not only could the testing time be possibly shortened and the product able to be used by the general public much sooner, but would give them the opportunity to give something back to the society they have taken from. Along with this their families could hold their heads up once more in the fact that their convicted family member IS giving something back instead of only taking. Not only would testing time be saved but possibly money as well. Not to mention the accuracy of the testing to begin with.
950754
no, it would just perpetuate an injustice.  encourage that person to report to the police and tell him what matters most will be that "the truth shall set us free."
509135
Because the allegations are out there, and whether or not it's been proven or not, you're guilty until proven innocent (or guilty).
716733
Polygraph tests are NOT admissible.  This is due to the fact, no evidence can be provided to support the responses.  Ive myself have seen where people have been found Innocent, even when the test result showed they probably have committed the offence.  The key word "probably"  would not stand up in a criminal court of law... you have to prove your case "beyond reasonable doubt".
975226
It depends on how much money you have. I have seen far too many innocent people punished because of poor representation.  Good Luck!
558736
Yes, we do hear stories of people wrongly accused but that is truly the exception and not the norm.  After having spent the last five years as a litigator, I can honestly say that I have great faith in the jury system in this country.  Juries almost always get it right.  \n\nFor your edification, despite what we see on t.v., circumstantial evidence is not faulty evidence.  Almost every case is going to be circumstantial as crimes rarely have strong, independent eyewitnesses.  Most people do their crimes in private.  \n\nHere's a good example.  You go to bed one night, look out your window and see your garden shining in the moonlight.  The next morning you wake up and see a blanket of snow over your garden that was not there last night.  You didn't personally see the snow fall.  However, the snow on the ground is circumstantial evidence of it having snowed last night.  the fact that you have no direct eyewitness evidence does not mean that the evidence of snowfall is any less persuasive.  \n\nThat having been said, don't let the media's attention on so-called wrongly convicted felons make you jaded.  We have the best system in the world.  Its accuracy rate is phenomenal.  If you don't believe me, go sit in on a criminal trial sometime.  The courtrooms are open to the public.  To watch our justice system in action is awe inspiring.  Go watch.  You'll see that the system really does work very well.\n\nNot to say that it is flawless but it sure is good.\n\nNow, the civil system -- that's a joke.  But that's a different story all together.
372040
it is so easy to find someone guilty and give them the death penalty, but how can anyone know for certain if that someone is guilty or innocent?\ngiving a guilty person the death penalty is an echo of the saying in the Bible..'an eye for an eye'. he who kills must be killed - right?\nbut then if that happens, they get executed straight away and they get away with the traumas of life afterwards, they don't have to think about what they have done anymore,do they?  the famillies of those killed will always have to live with the trauma that has been put on them, they will never forget what happened...\nyou will always find that a lot of people don't feel any remorse at all, but are given the chance to think about what they have done for a time,before they are put to death. the worst thing about the death penalty...are they absolutely positive they have enough evidence to prove that the person is guilty? we have all known of the stories about innocent people dying for something they didn't do. \nthe good thing about the death penalty is...it clears a space in our prisons, and the tax-payers money isn't being wasted on trying to re-habilitate those people who will, quite possibly,get released early and do it again.
319656
A not guilty verdict is not a proclamation of innocence.  A civil court did not find him guilty but they did find him liable.  At this point does it really matter?  This verdict forced the majority of Americans to admit something that minorities have been saying for decades, that the justice system is deeply flawed on both a racial bias and a class bias.  Pundits were saying there was no way cops would plant evidence but cops have historically committed atrocious acts (e.g. Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima, Rampart, Mississippi Burning 1964).  Is he innocent?  Only he knows now.
107515
no b/c they just may be INNOCENT--the court system isnt always right.
672297
It doesnt matter, they have to do that, if they call them guilty, they can be sued for slander if he ends up being found innocent.  It can also taint witnesses that see the report, as it helps to establish guilt in their minds.
1050037
I saw a show on thirteen world about this topic, it is very interesting. \nIt should vary from case to case. If someone found evidence of prior  hate or bad thoughts and such for the victim of the crime, they should have a some jail time, but even if they commited murder, it is  not wise to put them to jail because they were unconcious. If you can prove that they were concious that in fact changes everything. Judges should handle this with thought. I Disagree with everyone else because subconsious movement may be a sickness.
951493
Im assuming your innocent, we cant think the worst of everybody, so make the statement, clear your name, see justice done, otherwise, when you need to see justice another time, and you dont get it, you wont be able to complain about it, as you didnt see justice through, innocence will always win, well nearly always.
430622
Your words imply guilt. Have you convicted her? If so, on what evidence?
442858
yes, because being accused of something like that can ruin your life. you can lose you job, your friends, your family, even your freedom. and if it is done just to get back at you or whatever reason that person had, they should pay for it! however it is difficult to prove they are lying. sometimes people don't get convicted when they did rape someone just because there wasn't enough evidence so the accuser should not be punished then.