Guilty until proven innocent?

[tehsolace]

Before you give your answer to the following question, please think about most situations and the situations in entirety. I will give some examples to broaden your perspective before you give your final response.

Question - Which is a better methodology to use: Innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?

Now keep in mind, I'm not simply asking in terms of legality (legal cases). I'm also speaking in terms of everyday activity.

Scenarios:
1) A man is on trial for murder. You either assume he is innocent until proven guilty and risk freeing a murderer (and in doing so, threaten the lives of everyone else), or assume he is guilty until proven innocent and risk imprisoning an innocent man (and in doing so, ensure the safety of everyone else).

2) You are interviewing an applicant for a nursing position. You either assume he is incompetent (guilty) until proven fully competent (innocent) and risk denying a competent applicant, or assume he is competent until proven incompetent and risk the well-being of patients.

3) You are the EPA inspecting a new chemical. You either assume the chemical is harmful (guilty) until proven safe for humans (innocent) and risk denying a safe chemical to the public, or you assume the chemical is safe until proven harmful and risk releasing a harmful chemical to the public.


Notice in every scenario you can come up with, there are both downsides and upsides, generally dumbing down to the well-being of the individual and risking everyone else, or vice versa.

 

[Stigmata]

innocent until proven guilty, otherwise it's basically a big human rights violation

 

[gick]

3) You are the EPA inspecting a new chemical. You either assume the chemical is harmful (guilty) until proven safe for humans (innocent) and risk denying a safe chemical to the public, or you assume the chemical is safe until proven harmful and risk releasing a harmful chemical to the public.

This is how its done already - a new drug has to be proven to safe before it can be used in medicine etc

2) You are interviewing an applicant for a nursing position. You either assume he is incompetent (guilty) until proven fully competent (innocent) and risk denying a competent applicant, or assume he is competent until proven incompetent and risk the well-being of patients.

Again, this generally the way it goes already - if someone wants a job, they have to show themselves to be competent to the level the employers require....

1) A man is on trial for murder. You either assume he is innocent until proven guilty and risk freeing a murderer (and in doing so, threaten the lives of everyone else)or assume he is guilty until proven innocent and risk imprisoning an innocent man (and in doing so, ensure the safety of everyone else).

Firstly, your only ensuring the safety of everyone else if they guy you have locked up actually is guilty. Secondly, the idea of 'guilty until proven innocent' is a terrible idea in a legal sense - its virtually impossible to prove that you didnt do something, especially not beyond a reasonable doubt. Say, for example, someone breaks into a shop near your house, and you are arrested for it - you could have been at home all that evening, but if theres no-one to back up your alibi, then you're toast. And then theres the whole problem with the government/whoever being able to lock you up for more or less anything they like. Hello police state.

 

[CptStern]

it's always innocent until proven guilty ..or at least it should be when it comes to justice ..however it's not always the case ...gitmo prisoners are guilty till proven innocent ..since they havent been charged with anything the US can hold them indefinately without the prisoner ever knowing what he's been accused of

 

[Tyguy]

if you cant prove guilt, there isn't a case, no one has to prove innocence

 

[tehsolace]

Scenario 4) A new pharmaceutical drug is being tested. Do you assume that the drug is unsafe (guilty) until proven completely safe (innocent) and risk denying the release of a safe drug to help people, or do you assume that the drug is safe until proven unsafe and risk releasing a harmful drug to the public?


... not so black and white anymore, is it?

 

[Absinthe]

If you assumed everybody was guilty until proven innocent, you'd have to imprison the entire world's population out of sheer principle.

Pharmaceuticals and the legal system can't really be compared...

 

[gick]

Scenario 4) A new pharmaceutical drug is being tested. Do you assume that the drug is unsafe (guilty) until proven completely safe (innocent) and risk denying the release of a safe drug to help people, or do you assume that the drug is safe until proven unsafe and risk releasing a harmful drug to the public?


... not so black and white anymore, is it?

As I said in my post thats exactly what already happens.

And you cant compare Pharmacutical trials to the legal system, its apples and oranges.

 

[Tyguy]

As I said in my post thats exactly what already happens.

And you cant compare Pharmacutical trials to the legal system, its apples and oranges.

and plums

 

[Solaris]

Scenario 4) A new pharmaceutical drug is being tested. Do you assume that the drug is unsafe (guilty) until proven completely safe (innocent) and risk denying the release of a safe drug to help people, or do you assume that the drug is safe until proven unsafe and risk releasing a harmful drug to the public?


... not so black and white anymore, is it?

The difference is people have rights, and if these are to be infringed the burden of proof must lay on the prosecution. If you want to introduce a new drug you have to prove it works, if you want to put a person in prison you need to prove they committed a crime, the burden of proof lies on anything that challenges the status-quo.

 

[kirovman]

Innocent until proven guilty in legal cases, otherwise the burden of proof is on you to prove you aren't guilty of every crime ever committed.

Of course applying to be a Medical worker you should have to prove your credentials, but this is not really in terms of "guilty" or "innocent" as such.

Comparing the legal system to all those other things is a bit silly, and the pharmaceutical industry has clinical trials for a reason.

Bit of a no-brainer really.

 

[brink's]

If you assumed everybody was guilty until proven innocent, you'd have to imprison the entire world's population out of sheer principle.

Pharmaceuticals and the legal system can't really be compared...

QFT, i can't understand how anyone could abide by this line of thinking, it's completely illogical.

 

[G-Dub]

innocent until proven guilty, otherwise it's basically a big human rights violation

yes yes, QFT.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What universe are you living in where it's a moral grey area to check that food and drug products aren't poisonous?

 

[Cole]

Did you murder Fred?
No, until proven so.

Are you qualified for the job?
No until proven so.

Is the chemical safe?
No until proven so.


When your testing something you always assume that what your trying to prove is wrong. Think of doing indirect proofs in geometry, you assume what your trying to prove is wrong.

 

[DaMaN]

Did you murder Fred?
No, until proven so.

Are you qualified for the job?
No until proven so.

Is the chemical safe?
No until proven so.


When your testing something you always assume that what your trying to prove is wrong. Think of doing indirect proofs in geometry, you assume what your trying to prove is wrong.

Cole puts this very well, but I thought we should include the other options for comparison:

Did you murder Fred?
Yes, until proven no.
Consequently, did everyone else murder Fred?
Yes, until proven no.

Are you qualified for the job?
Yes, until proven no.
Consequently, is everyone else qualified for the job?
Yes, until proven no.

Is the chemical safe?
Yes, until proven no.
Are all other chemicals safe?
Yes, until proven no.


So, in order to select an answer to any of these questions, one has to evaluate every single answer.

You have to find out everyone who didn't murder Fred in order to find out if you murdered Fred, because everybody is guilty until proven innocent.

You have to find out everyone who isn't qualified for the job in order to find out whether you are qualified for the job, because everybody is qualified until proven unqualified.

You have to find out all the chemicals that aren't safe as well as finding out whether this chemical is safe, because everything is safe until proven unsafe.


It comes down to logistics: it is far quicker and easier to determine who is guilty/qualified/safe, than to determine every possible person/thing to ensure that they are innocent/unqualified/unsafe.

Record the least data on the most subjects.

 

[tehsolace]

Is the chemical safe?
No until proven so.


When your testing something you always assume that what your trying to prove is wrong. Think of doing indirect proofs in geometry, you assume what your trying to prove is wrong.

But who is to say that is the question you are supposed to ask?

What about "Is the chemical unsafe? No, until proven so."

 

[Jintor]

You assume that everything is bad until it's proven good, to simplify quite a bit.

 

[The Monkey]

Innocent until proven guilty is a praxis that should be used in any legal system. In the other two cases, it's the opposite.

 

[Absinthe]

But who is to say that is the question you are supposed to ask?

Common sense? The part of your brain that clicks on and says "I have no idea what this will do to me, so I won't ingest it"? Similarly, this is the same part of the brain that says "Jumping off this cliff would probably be a bad idea".

Tehsolace, please don't tell me you think there's actually some legitimate point of contention here. There isn't. Surely you can see that inverting our entire approach to the justice system and the pharmaceutical industry would be disastrous.

 

[Cole]

But who is to say that is the question you are supposed to ask?

What about "Is the chemical unsafe? No, until proven so."

All matters about the enviroment your in. Overall as Absinthe put it, Common Sense.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Wonderful idea. I accuse you of war crimes: disprove it. Right here, right now.

Completely ignoring human rights, and the relative difficulty of proving innocence instead of criminal liability, using a 'guilty until proven innocent' system would present huge practical challenges. Anybody could and would be accused of anything and the charges would have to be sustained until they were proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to be false. This would cost millions and tax the legal system to an impossible level; there would be so many trials there would be little time for anything else. In fact, logically, as Absinthe pointed out, the government would have to try every single person in the country for every possible crime. To operate in any other fashion would betray your principles of justice. If an accusation must be brought to begin a criminal investigation, you are still operating like it's innocent until proven guilty - you are still working on the basis that a positive assertion must be made and then disproved. Or perhaps you suggest criminal prosecutions not be brought until there is evidence to suggest they are valid? That's inconsistent too; in a true guilty until proven innocent system, evidence to the un-guiltyness would be required to even think of trying them for not being a criminal.

In fact, you would have to invert the whole legal system. All people would be guilty of all crimes and have no rights. When there is evidence to suggest that a person is a non-cannibis-smoke, an incriminal unprosecution will be brought and if it is found that they are not guilty, they will attain an incriminal record detailing their uncrimes. Of course, there would then have to be a trial for murder, theft, rape, before the citizen could be allowed to participate in society.

The basic end result seems to be a ruling class of 'clean' people who have been proved un-criminal in every respect (all of whom would have to be at least sixty, because the process takes so long), backed up by the immensely powerful judicary (also all 'freed men', thus old and/or corrupt) and, finally, at the bottom, a 'criminal' underclass (note that actually there would never be enough freedmen to form a judicary big enough to free enough people to form a judicary big enough to...oh dear).

And we think we have prison problems!

 

[kirovman]

It's difficult to mount a defence when you're presumed guilty.

"Can I speak to some of the witnesses/review the evidence etc?"

"No! You stay in jail!"

 

[Sulkdodds]

Remember, you wouldn't be able to just clear them of one murder. You would have to clear them of every possible murder.

"The verdict is - not guilty. Well, that's person 234 out of the way - only four billion more to go, eh lads?"
"Christ."
"Right, here we go again. Next customer, please. Hahaha. Are you Robert Harrison?"
"Oh, for God's sake, we've done this 234 times. Surely this isn't necessary by now?"
"Are you Robert Harrison?"
"Yes!"
"Good. You are charged with the murder of...Joe?"
"Hold on, hold on, just getting to the page - ah yes, person number 235, Kim Joon Ho of Seoul."
"Who?"
"Thank you, Joe. You are charged, Mr Harrison, with the murder of Kim Joon Ho on the 25th of April."
"I had a fever in April. I've never been to Korea!"
"How do you plead?"
"Not guilty, of course!"
"What a surprise. Well, Mr Harrison - "
"I tell you I've never been to Korea!"
"Can you prove it, Mr Harrison?"
"Christ."

 

[Absinthe]

Remember, you wouldn't be able to just clear them of one murder. You would have to clear them of every possible murder.

Not to mention every other crime. That includes urinating in every public pool, jaywalking at every street, doing every kind of illegal drug during every conceivable moment of the day, et cetera.

Even if we weren't imprisoning everybody, society would be totally bankrupt from everybody fining and suing each other into oblivion.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Exactly! It would be (not very) awesome.

I eagerly await a reply from the OP.