• But sometimes the justice system is so crippled that it cannot be practiced without evidence. The true evidence is essential, but where the society contains conscientious individual, but what if where evidence are for sale and there are buyers in abundance. There is no independent way for a judge to judge whether the witnesses are true or just concocted, and depending upon their statements, the judge blindly gives the decision, which in some cases is a total in justification.
  • I think it's a right thing, no one should be called criminal or with other name until proved guilty.

    Yeah Agree! But I think current law doesn't provide justice at all. 

  • I completely agree with this idea. Convicted person can not be held guilty until the blame is proven against him. This is justice in true sense. But sometimes guilty people are acquitted in the absence of sufficient evidence or by their defense lawyers. I believe that lawyers can play a critical role in convicting the guilty people. As good citizen, it is their responsibility to keep the society free from crime.

  • Dear Josef,
    I agree with on this point "the Law considers all people to be innocent until proven guilty". But if there is no any specific law for a crime, then it need to amended, so as to keep the society peaceful and healthy. As law is amended timely in accordance with circumstances and situations.

    Thank for starting nice discussion.
  • Hi Mr. Josef,

    It is a logical and reasonable law, how can we call someone guilty without any proof?

    Sometimes crimes can not be proved, in this case, the problem is with the police and the judge not with this law.

  •  I agree with the concept .

  • Mr. Josef, hmmm, Can I ask you some questions first?

    Are we born innocent or guilty? What's the demarcation line between them? How are they defined?

  • Hi Mr Essberger,

    In my opinion this is one of the basic principles of democracy system.
This reply was deleted.