A person is a wanted by the law--do you assume the person is guilty?

This is something that's puzzled me for a while, and likely just a result of unwarranted paranoia that something like this could happen to me or anyone else, but it's an issue that makes me think whenever I see something on the news or read about a person who is wanted for committing a crime.

When you see something like that (e.g.: a news article saying something like "John Personman is wanted for murdering 12 kids" or "Steve Humanpants was arrested yesterday for sexually assaulting this pretty white woman here"), do you always automatically tend to assume that, without question, this person is guilty? I know that I used to, but lately, I'm not so sure if I always want to make that leap so quickly. There's always a chance that, no matter how much circumstantial evidence there is, a person isn't guilty. But then you hear all the things like "He was at the scene!" or "He looks just like the person who did it, so it must be him!" or other such stuff, and then they bring up the picture of the cute little blond girl who was kidnapped or the college student in her prime who was shot or whoever to tug at people's heartstrings and BOOM! Whether or not ol' Johnny really did it, in the public's eye he should be hanged without a trial. No pun intended.

Look at something like the Innocence Project. They're an organization dedicated to helping people who have been wrongfully convicted, typically involving murder or rape cases. They've managed to help nearly 300 innocent people who were incarcerated for someone else's crimes in the past 20 or so years, and even then there's still many more people who are still rotting away in prison for no good reason. They didn't do the crime, they shouldn't do the time, but in the public's eyes, they're saying nothing but lies.

I guess a question I could pose here is something like, why do people tend to just unflinchingly assume that if you were arrested, you have done a crime and there is absolutely no possible way that there could have been a mistake? I dunno, what are YOOOOOUR thoughts, audience?

edited 16th Mar '12 2:02:03 AM by 0dd1

Generally speaking I don't read enough information on the case to make a decision one way or the other. However, if you're using "wanted by the law" to mean they're a fugitive and are deliberately evading police capture, then (a) I'd say that increases the liklihood that they're guilty, and (b) even if they're innocent of the crime they're accused of, resisting arrest is still illegal.

Oh, no, I mean just wanted for arrest or has already been arrested in general, not necessarily on the lam. I could have worded that better, but there's only so many characters allowed in a thread title.

Maybe I should've just said arrested.

I do agree that resisting or evading arrest always makes it seem sketchier, though.

edited 16th Mar '12 3:23:12 AM by 0dd1

I try not to assume anything, don't know if I'm always succesful. Isn't it illegal to mention his/her name if s/he has been arrested but not convicted?

The answer is yes.

People do this all the time.

The truth is that in real life, if you get charged, you are already half guilty.

No, it's legal to mention their name in the media; you just have to add the words "alleged" or "suspected" before mentioning what they're charged with.

I usually look at the charges as announced before making any assumption. If it is any kind of "trendy" crime or charge, of the kind that is politically used to push social movements (rape, for example, in particular if the media announces the number of victims or gloats on the damage), then I assume the person is non guilty by default.

The primary reason behind the United States Constitution enforcing "innocent until proven guilty" is the tendency of people to jump to conclusions in these matters. I admit that I do it as well. It's probably instinctive or learned social behavior; we do it automatically and without thinking.

Even as egalitarian as I consider myself to be, I have to remind myself consciously not to presume guilt.

edited 16th Mar '12 8:29:35 AM by Fighteer

Generally I would, because the police don't get it wrong too often. Plus

Mostly, unless it affects me personally somehow, I won't... care to make a judgement, feeling unable to actually do it with the effort necessary to be fair... if the person happened to cross my path I would call the police and all, but it is highly unlikely that I would do justice with my own hands or something.

Well, there is the underlying idea that the police wouldn't be trying to arrest someone if they didn't have at least some evidence against them, but the purpose of our justice system is that guilt or innocence is established at trial, not before.

I assume guilty. Basically all the time, and unconsciously. That doesn't really matter, though, the point of the justice system is "innocent until proven guilty." But I, as a private individual, presume that a wanted man is guilty. Why not? I have no great distrust of our police or other such systems.

But that attitude is precisely why jury selection tries to identify people who are unfamiliar with the case through the media, so that they don't come to the trial with a preestablished bias.

So if I stay informed and opinionated, I'll never have to do jury duty? :P

Actually, I heard how it works is that, if you're unsuitable for a particular trial because you're already familiar with the case, they'll just put you in the jury selection process for a different trial. And if you're unsuitable for that one, they'll move you to another one, and then to another one, again and again until they find one they can use you for or run out of trials.

Well, probably not on a Trial of the Century type case. That's one reason why those trials have huge jury selection pools, just so they can find people who are unbiased by previous exposure.

But the majority of jury duty is served on stuff that may never have even made the local papers — or if it did, was buried in the police blotter. I served once at the trial of a homeless schizophrenic who was accused of making a bomb threat over 911. We acquitted (lack of evidence).

My limited experience with jury duty in Virginia is that if you don't get selected for the trial that you were called for, you go home. You don't get bounced around. Heck, I've gotten a jury duty notice three or four times and only even been called in to the courthouse once. Maybe other jurisdictions work differently.

edited 16th Mar '12 9:00:49 AM by Fighteer

I believe everyone is innocent till a jury decides they are guilty.

To that I must say that the accused is innocent or guilty regardless to the jurys decision.

There is a fact, a truth — did they do the thing they are accused/suspected of? — that exists independent of warrant, arrest, prosecution, conviction, incarceration, appeal, etc. As we human beings do not have access to Ultimate Truth, however, we must make do with the next best thing, which is that regardless of the truth or falsehood of the accusation, the method of determining it is as fair as possible.

We do this precisely because it is in human nature to equate accusation with guilt. It's an automatic response that we must condition ourselves to suppress.

edited 16th Mar '12 11:25:36 AM by Fighteer

I find that my personal assumption varies with the crime they're accused of. For the "big" crimes (rape, murder, etc), I tend to assume that the person is probably guilty, but for the smaller stuff (assault, theft, etc.), I tend to assume they're not.

I tend to consciously ask myself whether I'm making an assumption one way or another, and order myself to not conclude anything.

This is a general statement about what I do when I don't know the truth about something, although it also applies to this specific topic.

edited 16th Mar '12 3:42:42 PM by feotakahari

I tend to assume that while there's probably a reason why the person got arrested, they might not be guilty of the specific crime they are accused of.

I don't do either: when a person is arrested usually I just note that s/he has been arrested. I don't have access to the evidence, so I don't judge.

Unless the said person already has a known record of committing the crime s/he got arrested for, then I get suspicious.

inocent until proven otherwise. Unless it is blatantly obvious.

Someone who's been arrested is somewhat more likely than some random person to have committed a crime.

Even then, though, without extra evidence I assume not guilty. Not always quite innocent, but not guilty.