Only the presumption of innocence by the court is important to our legal system. Anyone not part of the trial has no obligation to presume any defendant is innocent.
It’s been made painfully clear this last decade or so that a lot of people are plain fucking stupid or incapable of making their own informed decisions, relying on paid media to tell them what to think following a specific narrative.
We’ve seen a lot of cases where people were villified by the media and then evidence turns up proving their innocence, or that the evidence we originally were presented was faked, out of context, or otherwise the opposite of what was claimed.
Just look at the recent back and forth both on social media and in “news” articles with that guy in Michigan and the suspended drivers license. It’s went from a guy in Zoom court while driving on a suspended license, which seems to be pretty clear, and had people viewing the situation a certain way. Oh but then it was just a State clerical error from something that was supposed to be cleared 2 years ago, to maybe he never actually had a driver’s license. So then what was actually suspended in the first place? And all that within just a couple days for a viral video.
We cannot simply trust the information we’re given blindly online, we as individuals need to keep in mind that even though things may look one way, that there is a possibility we are getting incorrect info, even from a trusted source.
Those sound like good arguments to promote the idea of treating people like they’re innocent until proven guilty. At least the courts have some standards.
Only the presumption of innocence by the court is important to our legal system. Anyone not part of the trial has no obligation to presume any defendant is innocent.
It’s been made painfully clear this last decade or so that a lot of people are plain fucking stupid or incapable of making their own informed decisions, relying on paid media to tell them what to think following a specific narrative.
We’ve seen a lot of cases where people were villified by the media and then evidence turns up proving their innocence, or that the evidence we originally were presented was faked, out of context, or otherwise the opposite of what was claimed.
Just look at the recent back and forth both on social media and in “news” articles with that guy in Michigan and the suspended drivers license. It’s went from a guy in Zoom court while driving on a suspended license, which seems to be pretty clear, and had people viewing the situation a certain way. Oh but then it was just a State clerical error from something that was supposed to be cleared 2 years ago, to maybe he never actually had a driver’s license. So then what was actually suspended in the first place? And all that within just a couple days for a viral video.
We cannot simply trust the information we’re given blindly online, we as individuals need to keep in mind that even though things may look one way, that there is a possibility we are getting incorrect info, even from a trusted source.
Those sound like good arguments to promote the idea of treating people like they’re innocent until proven guilty. At least the courts have some standards.