Whether he did it or not he is innocent until proven guilty

[Hugasaurusrex]

How do you feel about people who only judge people who commit heinous crimes if a court can find them guilty?

Am I being unreasonable to say that especially in sexual crimes that innocent until proven guilty is meaningless in a society set up for people to get away with these types of crime.

YANBU. Legally, within the criminal justice system, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

However, within our lived experiences, our cultural norms and our wider society - all
informed by the oppression of actual misogynistic violence or our awareness of it's potentiality - it is impossible to mistake "innocence" for absence of guilt.

i don’t allow anyone to dictate how or when I use my own reasoning faculties. The evidentiary standard for a court case has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Hear hear

I work in the justice system and all not guilty means is that the jury couldn't bring themselves to state that the act was provable beyond all reasonable doubt, it's doesn't mean someone didn't do something. I much prefer systems which have the not proven outcome instead

The phrase is "presumed innocent" and it's the way it should be. You have to treat the accused as being innocent until proved guilty. And that provides everyone with the same Rights. There's nothing wrong with that, it is the best we can do to prevent punishing innocent people. As a society, we decided a long time ago that it's better overall for guilty people to avoid punishment than for innocent people to be unjustly treated. It's not perfect, it never will be.

Your second paragraph makes no sense at all could you have another crack at forming a coherent question please op?

It’s a bit clumsily worded, but it’s not difficult to understand. Try reading it again more slowly.

Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, it’s an incoherent question.

Presumed innocence is a legal principle, not a magic wand. If someone commits a crime, they are guilty from that moment. They don't morally get a free year when their crime ceases to exist because 12 randoms haven't judged it either way yet.

This X a million.

I reread it, it is definitely you.

Think you've quoted the wrong person there

Apologies @sprigatito it is definitely the poster you quoted.

I believe it's rare, but some people do lie. A false accusation of sexual crimes absolutely destroys someone, even without them being seen as innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law.
I think when we're talking about someone with multiple accusations from people who have no connection to each other common sense says they're guilty. But for one accusation I think innocent until proven guilty is the right way to go about things.

Nah, it’s you. Have a crack at forming a proper question.

’Meaningless’ how, for example? Define, explain then we might be able to engage.

Is there really nothing wrong with it when people get away with crimes they have actually committed or do you mean it is the best we can do as flawed human beings whose flaws are magnified when we come up systems.

Nah no thanks, maybe try another thread it will probably be more suited for you.

YANBU - a lot of people still believe that if a man isn't found guilty of rape, that means the woman must be lying. But usually it's just because there isn't enough evidence to prove it 'beyond reasonable doubt' as there's no witnesses and it's a woman and a man in a room. Infinitely more men have got away with rape than women who have lied about it but I don't know what we can do about it in the majority of cases when the man and woman are known to each other and there are no witnesses and no signs of violence (and I don't believe one can always expect a woman to fight back - I'm 5ft 1 and even a bloke of average size and strength could easily hurt me badly if I tried to resist them, for example).

I certainly will do that, it won’t be hard given every other AIBU thread features an actual coherent question

No. There is nothing wrong with presuming that somebody is innocent until they have been found guilty. The corollary would be presuming they are guilty, in which case, why bother with a trial?

Yeah it is a real challenge and I completely ageee with you. I have this real feeling that particularly in sex crimes there is this impossible bar that means so many men walk away from actually committing the crime with not guilty verdicts or even absolutely no attempt to prosecute at all that innocent until proven guilty is all but meaningless and yet so many people will write this is comment sections under reports of this type of crime.

But surely if you commit a crime you are guilty of commiting that crime even if a court finds you not guilty?

Building upon my previous comment, which may have proven excessively nuanced for you, "presumed innocent" is a concept relevant only in a court of law.

Less than 3% of reported rapes in the UK are prosecuted. About two thirds of prosecutions result in conviction.

That means 97% of reported rapes are never prosecuted. On top of that, most rapes are never even reported to the police.

Let's say only 1 in 100 are reported. I'm willing to bet this is no exaggeration and is probably an underestimate. But let's choose to say only 1% of rapes are reported. That means arithmetically, ultimately, only 0.02% of rapes are ever punished by the criminal 'justice' system.

Most women therefore understand that predatory men are rarely found legally guilty for their criminal transgressions against us.

That does not mean those crimes never happened.

Exactly.

How does anyone know they're guilty if it isn't proven in a court of law?