Only $35.99/year

History test (chapter 4)

Terms in this set (86)

This old saying similar works hand-in-hand with the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty." I personally believe that 100 guilty people going free is worse than an innocent person being unjustly punished. When a person is tried for, as an example, murder, then the state has to prove whether or not that person is guilty. No matter what that person who was tried walks in the court room door innocent whether they killed a person or not. It's how they leave that room that decides their fate. The saying of "innocent until proven guilty." also works with the rules of Double Jeopardy. With double jeopardy, a single person cannot be tried a second time for an offense they've already been accused of and proven that they were not guilty of doing. Without the sayings of "guilty until proven innocent" and Double Jeopardy then we would have an over-powered prosecutor with no end to their authority.



I agree with this statement because it is not fair for many innocent people to be thrown in jail, the government needs to strive for more accurate evidence to secure that the person is guilty. By being innocent their rights of freedom are violated and are being unfairly punished for a crime they did not commit. Having guilty people get off free is wrong but better than having innocent people pay time for no crime. The guilty people still get to keep their rights of freedom and living without punishment, something that the innocent people should be doing. The right balance in our society that we should aim for is having all guilty people having proper evidence against them and fair punishment for their crime, and then all innocent people have proper evidence for their innocence and get off with no punishment.