if i kill 3 people am i innocent until the court says im guilty. forget off moron
god damnit, I leave for five months and the moment I decide to check out what’s going on here, we’re back to this line of thinking.
why do we have the presumption of innocence as a fundamental part of our justice system? Because it’s ridiculous to assume that the accused should have to prove their innocence. Putting the burden of proof on the prosecution ensures that, on the whole, people won’t waste their own time or the court’s time on allegations which are fundamentally unverifiable.
Does this always work? Of course not, and nothing is perfect. An example of this is that it’s extremely difficult to convict an identical twin on the basis of DNA evidence. Unless you can prove which of the pair left DNA evidence at the crime scene, they must be presumed innocent. The justice system cannot bypass this presumption of innocence until proof that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is brought forward.
The alternative presumption of guilt until proven innocent is asinine and the only people that would unironically approve of such a ridiculous concept are wannabe fascists, handicapped tankies, or any otherwise overreaching authoritarian nutjob wanting to set up kangaroo courts to use against their opposition.
socialism doesnt imply a tryranny and this doesn't impede on the right for people to vote
Cutting out the conjecture and replying to the only assertion made. Socialism in and of itself doesn’t imply tyranny in the traditional sense of an absolute dictatorship, but it does imply a large and authoritarian government which must use coercive force to seize factors of production and collectivize them.
While socialism in and of itself won’t necessarily lead to tyranny by the literal definition of “socialism” and “tyranny,” historically socialist regimes and revolutions have been precursors to tyranny due to either a power vacuum created which a dictator has filled (Castro in Cuba, Stalin following the death of Lenin in the USSR) or by causing a reactionary movement from diametrically opposed extremists which leads to, you guessed it, a dictator (Franco in Spain, Pinochet in Chile)