Quote:
Originally Posted by icarus
Why defend what? Civil liberties? Why oppose them?
You said: Thankfully you are not a decision-maker in the justice system, because your prejudice shows. They are not criminals until they have been convicted of a crime (or do you not believe in the presumption of innocence? If not, I am sure you would prefer to live in Syria). They therefore have a right to be free unless the judge determines that they are dangerous, a flight risk, or their release would undermine public confidence in the justice system. Judges already weigh the evidence and make decisions accordingly. By reversing the onus you essentially ensure that anyone who can't afford to pay their own lawyer will be denied bail. Of course this is okay by you because you assume that anyone charged must therefore be the perpetrator.
|
Actually most are criminals by this point... Have you ever had violent crime happen to you or a member of your family??? I would suspect not. We aren't taking about petty theft and smoking weed....we are talking about someone who has no regard for other people, their life or their property...someone who would shove a gun in your face and tell you that you will die if you do not comply....someone who shoots randomly into a crowd of people.
The law won't make it impossible to receive bail...it simple puts the onus on the offender to show the court that they will comply with any conditions put on them if they are granted release. As for your lawyer arguement...well it doesn't fly. There are very, very good defence lawyers that work for legal aid or take on legal aid cases.
As for this statement:
Of course this is okay by you because you assume that anyone charged must therefore be the perpetrator.
Why is it that people have to make things up to try and discredit me??? This is about the third or fourth time now that someone has said I said something when I haven't. Please find somewhere...anywhere that I led someone to believe that I think people should be considered guilty until inoccent?