My dear reader’s you are welcome.
- It never apply in society and it never apply for the government either. The one that determine guilty or innocence is the state security apparatus not the judicial branch, the judicial branch is just there to rubber stamp what the state security apparatus has already determine.
My prediction of what will happen in the future and is based on the understanding that history is cyclical.
Right now I understand that we are at the dawn of a neo medieval age. Just like in the medieval age, there is a project to create the perfect moral human. In medieval times the inquisition was created to create the perfect moral human. The logic was behind the concept of pain. Physical and emotional pain was seen as the key to fight temptation and sin. That’s why the inquisition create the most brutal torture machines in history. The more pain the heretic feel the less sinful the heretic is and the better the heretic can fight temptation.
During 1,000 years the inquisition was successful (it annihilate the Cather’s with impunity). The inquisition has always existed, it is instinctive in humans to form inquisitions, in ancient times there was inquisitions and torture was use. So the medieval inquisition was an evolution of inquisitions before it and religion is not the only one that use inquisitions.
But the medieval inquisition was successful at creating a monolith of European society. Herd immunity was reinforced and through that herd immunity a lot of corruption happen. The corruption inside the Catholic Church was the reason Protestantism was created. Eventually this led to the 30 year war.
The current theory use by the government is that herd immunity will make humans behave morally, but is this same herd immunity that protect the corruption in medieval times and create Protestantism as a reaction to this. Historically humans has committed atrocities in the name of the tribe and with the protection of the tribe.
Base on this historical lessons. If the current eugenics project is successful at promoting a human being with a strong herd instinct and a new neo medieval and neo feudalism social order is created out of this project. This project will be successful within centuries, but it will eventually lead to corruption like in medieval times, causing a split, and creating an event like the 30 year war.
The only way to create a human being with a neuroethology as healthy as possible, as nature allows, is to carry out a eugenics project where the neuroethology of every human being born is catalog and only those with a healthy neuroethology are allow to procreate. And herd immunity cannot and should not be used as justification for the neuroethology of that human being not to be catalog and classify.
No. It never did apply in “society.” The only thing it means is that the government must treat a criminal defendant as they would treat any other innocent person until or unless a court with criminal jurisdiction declares them to be guilty.
At all other times, when the question of whether or not a person has committed a crime or other bad act requires the person making the judgment to weigh the evidence pointing at the judged person to balance the amount of evidence against the consequences of getting it wrong, with due consideration to whether or not it is any of your business.
For instance, an interesting looking fellow asks you out on a date. Upon seeing this conversation happen, your girlfriend reports to you that she went out with him and he raped her. She says that she did not report it to the police because she didn’t think he would ever be convicted since she went with him voluntarily. Several things are clear: a) you’re not sticking your nose in where it does not belong; b) you must decide whether you trust your girlfriend and whether you think you know him well enough to trust him; and c) the consequences of getting it wrong are life threatening.
You are not required to presume that he is innocent.
Example 2: You are the manager of a day care center. A middle aged man applies for a job and when you call his references, one of them reports “I’m not supposed to tell you this, but he was let go after several of the children complained of improper touching.” You call two other references and both of them put you on hold and then come back and both say this exact thing: “Mr. Smith worked here for [each has a different number] ___ months. His termination was not voluntary.” Pressed for more details, both tell you that this statement is all that they allowed to say. a) It literally is “your business.” b) There is certainly enough evidence for you to act. c) The consequences of getting it wrong may be devastating. No presumption of innocence applies.
Example 3: Candidate A is running for governor of your state. He has been accused publicly by 24 women of various sexual assaults, including rape. They has made very large financial settlements with at least two women. He says that they are all lying and promises to sue them for libel, but three years have passed without any suit being filed. It is certainly your business to decide if he is honest and/or whether he treats women in a way that you want you governor to treat them and in a way that you will need to explain to your boys if he becomes their governor. a) It is your duty to decide whether or not he gets your vote. b) You must weigh the evidence on your own. c) You must decide what you think are the consequences if you get it wrong.
No presumption of innocence applies.
Unfortunately no, the table has turned to guilty until proven innocent and that “prove you’re innocent” is becoming harder and harder to do nowadays.
Everyone, and everywhere, from the police to the judge, believes a person is lying no matter what, and you’re guilty as charged. Maybe not the crime you’re charged with, but you definitely did something you should have been caught for.
Courts believe children over their parents — which makes it hard because you have a child who is mad at one parent and points a finger for no reason (often with the help of the other parent who is already upset at the first parent) — Wham! You have a false case of child abuse and neglect.
The whole @me-too movement — some of those men were guilty as charged, but what about the men who were charged falsely by a woman scorned?
Save your negative comments, people — I’m being real here! If you don’t like my answer, do not read it!! Pull up your big-people underwear and face the truth that this happens in life!!
More innocent people are taking plea deals to avoid longer prison times on things they did not do. Read the statistics in Psychology Today if you wish to dispute my claim.
In today’s society it’s not “innocent until proven guilty”, it’s “guilty until you die” because even after proof comes out you’re innocent, people look at you as a criminal.
This nation needs healing. The criminal justice system needs reform.
- Guilty’ is a judgment call that humans always pay dearly for; since we never know enough to fairly judge another and unfairly judging (even ourselves) has awful Karma.
So we develop societal processes to determine if a given person should pay now for their choices; even though they will, at end of this life, have to deal with Cosmic Evaluations which few of us ever think enough about!