[General Battuta]

But that's not how the justice system works.

Then that sounds like a problem, at least in my opinion.

So in your opinion, if a man is firing a gun at your friend, you should allow him to kill your friend in order to have a better chance of apprehending him?

Because by all accounts so far that's what happened. bin Laden was apparently asked to surrender. He refused, and he resisted violently.

[Unknown Target]

What does it tell you about a country who calls people criminals, when the criminals are so afraid of getting caught that they're willing to go out shooting rather than be given a trial? Are those trials really that fair, then?

[Nuclear1]

Well, I'm confused then.

Law enforcement gathers evidence regarding X.  They believe X to be responsible or culpable in some way for crime Y.  They don't believe he's innocent, they believe he's guilty of Y.  Once they amass enough evidence to arrest X for Y (which is a pretty damn heavy burden of proof, given the numerous rights of the accused), they take X into custody.  They hand all of the evidence to the prosecutor's office.

Once the trial starts, X is assumed to be not guilty before the court and the jury.  The prosecution's entire job here is to convince the jury and the judge that X is indeed guilty of Y.  The defense's job is to prove the prosecution's statement wrong--either X is not guilty of Y, or he's not culpable in the way the prosecution says he is. 

So basically, the prosecution has to assume guilt, because that's the whole purpose of them being in court in the first place.  I agree this isn't fair, if it was only that one side.  But that's the whole point of the rights of the accused, and having a defense side to a trial. 

What does it tell you about a country who calls people criminals, when the criminals are so afraid of getting caught that they're willing to go out shooting rather than be given a trial? Are those trials really that fair, then?

What?

It's a military operation.  bin Laden probably fought back for reasons other than not getting a fair trial. 

[Unknown Target]

Well, I'm confused then.

Law enforcement gathers evidence regarding X.  They believe X to be responsible or culpable in some way for crime Y.  They don't believe he's innocent, they believe he's guilty of Y.

That seems to be the problem to me. Before he's brought in, people assume that others have had good cause to suspect that he's guilty.

Therefore, when he's brought into the court room, people are looking to find out if he's guilty - not to find out if he's innocent.

Think back to when our justice system was first laid out, and see if what I'm saying makes a bit more sense?

So basically, the prosecution has to assume guilt

This goes against "innocent until proven guilty".

[redsniper]

What does it tell you about a country who calls people criminals, when the criminals are so afraid of getting caught that they're willing to go out shooting rather than be given a trial? Are those trials really that fair, then?

By the way, are you following me from thread to thread because you're interested in what I have to say or because you like the sight of my rear?

He knew there was most likely a mountain of evidence against him, and that his cause would be better served by him dying than being captured and standing fair trial. At least, that's my take on it.

[General Battuta]

What does it tell you about a country who calls people criminals, when the criminals are so afraid of getting caught that they're willing to go out shooting rather than be given a trial? Are those trials really that fair, then?

What does it tell you about a person that he'd kill 3000 people? Maybe it suggests he's willing to shoot at Americans too?

Seems a little more likely.

By the way, are you following me from thread to thread because you're interested in what I have to say or because you like the sight of my rear?

You sound so scared. Unfortunately this is almost as silly as the last thing you said - notice who started this thread?

I'm active in every thread on GenDisc and have been for years. Nobody's safe.

[Lucika]

It's a military operation.  bin Laden probably fought back for reasons other than not getting a fair trial. 

"Surrender, Osama bin Laden!"
"Never! I wouldn't get a fair trial from you heretics!"
"Yes we will give you a fair trial, Sir! Hundreds of years of--"
*bin Laden picks up a shotgun*

I mean, seriously, if there really was a firefight after decline of surrender, I would find it rather pointless to discuss the US justice system

[Nuclear1]

Two words:  voir dire.

Ultimately, it's not the prosecution's or the defense's, or even the judge's call whether someone is guilty or not guilty.  That's the jury. 

Before he's brought in, people assume that others have had good cause to suspect that he's guilty.

The only people that need cause to assume guilt are the police and prosecution.  Judges are involved at nearly every step, from getting search warrants to drawing up grand juries. 

Therefore, when he's brought into the court room, people are looking to find out if he's guilty - not to find out if he's innocent.

Again, voir dire.  The people who make the decision, the jury, are heavily vetted by both the prosecution and defense to weed out people who A) have been following the case in the media, B) have any personal biases relating to the case, or C) can't judge the case dispassionately. 

Think back to when our justice system was first laid out, and see if what I'm saying makes a bit more sense?

The government actually has a much harder time now then 200 years ago convicting someone simply because we have 200 years of case law relating to the rights of the accused.

[NGTM-1R]

Unknown has clearly never heard of Miranda v. Arizona.

(That must really cut down on his understanding of cop shows.)

[Nuke]

i thinik i would have perfered taking bin ladin and family to gitmo and torture them until they give up the rest of their organization. and im not talking lame american torture techniques, im talking the vlad treatment here. except we would have modern medicine keeping him alive for as long as possible.

[Mustang19]

Well, I'm confused then.

Law enforcement gathers evidence regarding X.  They believe X to be responsible or culpable in some way for crime Y.  They don't believe he's innocent, they believe he's guilty of Y.  Once they amass enough evidence to arrest X for Y (which is a pretty damn heavy burden of proof, given the numerous rights of the accused), they take X into custody.  They hand all of the evidence to the prosecutor's office.

Once the trial starts, X is assumed to be not guilty before the court and the jury.  The prosecution's entire job here is to convince the jury and the judge that X is indeed guilty of Y.  The defense's job is to prove the prosecution's statement wrong--either X is not guilty of Y, or he's not culpable in the way the prosecution says he is. 

So basically, the prosecution has to assume guilt, because that's the whole purpose of them being in court in the first place.  I agree this isn't fair, if it was only that one side.  But that's the whole point of the rights of the accused, and having a defense side to a trial. 

In common usage, presumption of innocence refers to how the accused has a right to trial and will not be convicted unless the prosecution proves they committed the crime. The defense need not prove innocence, they just need to prevent the prosecution from proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt (there's always a possibility space aliens performed the crime but all reasonable doubts must be addressed). The implication is that if guilt was presumed the burden of proof would be on the defendant instead. The prosecution or police can assume whatever they want though, they aren't the judge.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

[Scotty]

What UT is missing is that prosecution is bound by the law to assume that the defendant is guilty.  That's why they're the prosecution.  They are NOT the judge, jury, or defense.

[Nuclear1]

In common usage, presumption of innocence refers to how the accused has a right to trial and will not be convicted unless the prosecution proves they committed the crime. The defense need not prove innocence, they just need to prevent the prosecution from proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt (there's always a possibility space aliens performed the crime but all reasonable doubts must be addressed). The implication is that if guilt was presumed the burden of proof would be on the defendant instead. The prosecution or police can assume whatever they want though, they aren't the judge.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Yeah, exactly.  The burden of proof in a trial is on the prosecution, and all the defense needs to do is introduce some reasonable doubt into the prosecution's theory.

[KewlToyZ]

Seriously? 

[General Battuta]

gendisc

[Qent]

Unless you're suggesting he's a Cylon...?

[FreespacePilot2010]

Shouldnt this be moved to the off topic forum?                            Not sure what this has to do with diaspora unless your considering making a giant Osama head shaped basestar.

[Mongoose]

What UT is missing is that prosecution is bound by the law to assume that the defendant is guilty.  That's why they're the prosecution.  They are NOT the judge, jury, or defense.

And that's the exact reason why prosecutors won't pursue charges that have significant doubt attached to them.  A DA's office has to be confident that the person they're prosecuting actually committed the crime in question, otherwise there's no point in wasting the time and effort.

[Grizzly]

It would have been better to arrest him if if we also arrested every other person we suspected of doing a great misdeed.

After all, in a fair justice system, you are innocent unless proven guilty. We would also have to bring cases against high ranking officials all across the globe.

These days, and the idea that the US can just burst down a door and kill everyone inside the room, smacks of a justice system that thinks you are innocent until proven guilty.

Would you arrest someone when he was trying to fill you with 7.62 bullets?

[The E]

Speaking only for myself, conspiracy theorists should be transported to the moon without spacesuits. While wearing JFK masks.