BonoVoxSupastar said:
I'm sorry but you aren't on my side if you don't agree that people are innocent until proven guilty. There's just no other humane way to deal with crime.
I'm not talking about cases in which there could be a mistake in identity.
I'm talking about a crime taking place 10 feet from where I'm standing and me seeing the crime being committed and me WATCHING the guy shoot another person........I can't say it was a "suspect" or an "alleged" gunman - I SAW it happen!
That's the case of "innocent until proven guilty" being irrelevant because the crime took place right in front of me.....how could the perpetrator be innocent????
Now do you understand my point? I hope so......
And just to drive another point home, here's another example taken from the Israeli court yesterday - this is an actual case:
A suspect was arrested in a murder case and, on the advise of his lawyer, freely gave a DNA sample in order to prove his innocence in this case. The DNA sample was obtained after the police promised not to use the DNA sample as evidence in other cases (should they arise).
Well, during the testing, the DNA sample cleared the suspect of murder but, as it turns out, the sample clearly showed he was guilty in at least 3 unsolved rape cases. His DNA matched samples taken from the rape victims.
Naturally his lawyer thought that the DNA sample couldn't be used as evidence....but the judge surprised him: the judge said that the public interest dictates that this person not walk off scott-free for raping at least 3 women. So, in a judicial first, the judge INCLUDED the DNA evidence and so the suspect was cleared of murder and convicted of rape and sent to prison.
I would assume that in the United States the suspect would have walked.....and sent back in the streets to rape again.
Isn't it better that this rapist is now behind bars instead of threatening women?
Now THAT'S justice!!!