Quote: Originally Posted by JLM
Our justice system is based on the assumption that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. If that is really the case why do accuseds have to post bail or remain in jail awaiting trial? I say you can't have it both ways. As it's not reasonable or safe to allow the likes of Pickton, Bernardo etc. to remain on the street while awaiting trial, I think this "innocent until proven guilty" bullsh*t should be removed.
This is a good answer to a good question:
"No, you are not guilty because you are in jail, you are the ACCUSED. That's enough to want to keep you locked up, but not enough to keep you for long. The basic law is innocent until proven guilty for the simple reason that the alternative would be much, much less fair.
Consider if you were assumed guilty until you could prove your innocence. Perry Mason always proved his client was innocent by proving someone else committed the crime. How often do you think that happens? And should it be necessary to be the one to correct the police's errors and find the guilty party? How would you go about it when there you are in jail, and everyone is entitled to assume you are guilty?
Also, the guilty assumption would put way, way too much power in the hands of the police. This way, they turn you over to the district attorney with what amounts to "We think this is the guy. You prove it or he will walk." This creates a division of responsibility between the police and the DA, which helps avoid some (but clearly not all) corruption. Then it puts your defense attorney on a theoretically even footing with the DA.
The whole idea is that it is better that the guilty go free once in awhile when the system fails to work properly than have the innocent locked up. On the whole, I like our system better than any conceivable alternative."
auntb93again: http://answers.yahoo.com/activity?show=AA10235908 
