> For an accused person, one of the most critical differences is that under Mexican criminal law, the accused is essentially considered guilty until proven innocent.
> Unfortunately, prosecutors are not trying to find out the truth, they're simply trying to put whoever is in front of them in prison. It doesn't matter if the suspect is guilty. If the guy goes to prison, they win.
Yes, exactly. I still can't wrap my mind around this.
> "not guilty" in the US is not the same as "innocent"
Yeah, it is. That's exactly what "not guilty" means.
> They determine whether the government was able to prove its claim of guilt.
Right. Because people are presumed innocent. The failure to overcome the burden of proof to rebut a presumption means that the presumption is true. That's what a legal presumption means.
> The US system of justice is based on assuming innocence until guilt is proven.
The US system of criminal justice is based on a strong presumption of innocence in court (and the civil system has a much weaker presumption), but those presumption are not intended to apply thr same way to the people who investigate crimes or to institutions who perform non-criminal, including investigatory, functions.
If you apply a strong presumption of innocence to the investigative function, you never investigate and never find evidence.
> Even so, "innocent until proven guilty" is the better standard
You're confusing this with the legal system. Normal people outside that don't have access to formal investigative powers and resources. Their only course is to use their best judgment based on what they do know.
Where greater penalties like fines and jail are involved, a corresponding greater standard of proof is required.
> "That's distinct from 'I didn't get treated fairly' [.. ] It's not, 'Some of the evidence was obtained unlawfully, there was an incorrect ruling by the court, [...] - no, you actually have the wrong person here...they're actually innocent."
So there is a difference between real innocence and "we-are-not-able-to-convict-him-but-we-think-he-is-guilty" innocence? And the prosecutor gets to decide?
Then why even bother with the due process? Why not let the prosecutor decide directly? /s
> Do you want to never let a perp go (i.e. jail innocent people in order to catch every guilty person) versus let some baddies slip through the net while not imprisoning innocent people
Isn't the latter the official standard most places? Innocent until proven guilty. It's just not really a dilemma if you ask me. If you have authority to do something based on some event, then you have to prove that event happened.
> Ex: we have a pretty clear innocent until proven guilty justice system.
The high bar of "innocent until proven guilty" (and "beyond a reasonable doubt") only applies to criminal cases, though, and not to civil ones. The present situation is much more analogous to a civil case where you have to weigh the interests of two parties (i.e., Kiwifarms and their victims) against each other.
> In the USA, in 2017, people who knows they're guilty plead not guilty because they have reason to believe that they'll be able to get away with something.
Yes some people do this, but the vast, vast majority of cases never go to trial. Innocent people plead guilty in the us all the time.
> So you generally believe people are guilty until proven innocent, and I always believe people are innocent until they are proven guilty.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a legal standard applied where “guilty” means having one’s liberty taken away. And in that context it’s a perfectly appropriate standard. But as mere spectators, where the harm caused by mistakenly believing he’s guilty is minimal, I think we should feel free to simply believe in the most likely possibility (aka preponderance of the evidence). You may disagree on that point, and that’s your right. However, if we agree to apply that standard, I don’t think it’s reasonable to believe that the FBI’s allegations being false is actually more likely than the alternative.
> I never take the government word for anything, and generally assume the government is lying at all times. History supports my position.
> > That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character.
http://tijuana.usconsulate.gov/root/pdfs/telegalcriminalguid...
reply