home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.kids
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!relay!relay2!afterlife!adculha
- From: adculha@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Andrew Culhane)
- Subject: Re: Why *don't* we tell? (was Home alone, not a good story)
- Message-ID: <1993Jan21.202754.931@afterlife.ncsc.mil>
- Organization: The Great Beyond
- References: <1993Jan21.162154.6664@cbnews.cb.att.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:27:54 GMT
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <1993Jan21.162154.6664@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
- ... comments of mine deleted that even accused child abusers have to
- be presumed innocent until proven guilty ...
- >
- >Accused persons are not presumed innocent until proven guilty. That only
- >happens when they are tried. People are routinely jailed, have their assets
- >frozen, required to pay legal fees, etc. long before they come to trial.
- >
-
- You're right about these things, of course, but being imprisoned is not
- an assumption of guilt. It is an assumption that you are the most likely
- suspect. Being denied bond is also not an assumption of guilt. It is
- an assumption that you wouldn't show up for trial. Having your assets
- frozen is similarly not an assumption of guilt, and neither is having
- to pay your own lawyer.
-
- I'm sorry if I'm picking nits. My point is simply that it would be
- a Very Bad Thing if the courts assumed that all accused child abusers
- were in fact guilty, and required them to prove that they were not.
-
- "Child abuser" is already as convenient a label as "witch" used to be.
- Just as you couldn't prove you weren't a witch if everyone believed you
- were, you can't prove that you're not a child abuser.
-
-