To me, the most troubling part of yesterdays proceedings was the news that the MPD has changed its policy regarding sexual assault. The new policy, according to Fwen, "The policy reads, in part, "every sex crime investigation is to be initiated with the belief it is true until evidence demonstrates otherwise." This is chilling because the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent is supposed to keep judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. We the people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence — a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society. The MPD policy now rejects one of the corner stones of due process.
From Wikipedia "The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted."
I do not believe it is the proper position of the Missoula Chief of Police to substantively alter such a fundamental right. I do not believe that any government agency or individual has the authority to make such a sweeping change to a basic fundamental right in the dark without any semblance of the light of day. I also think this goes towards what someone else posted here earlier, sorry i can't recall who said it exactly, something along the lines of the uprising of the anti-Griz Football faction. Of all the things I've read, heard, and seen from this trial, rejecting the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence angers me more than anything.
From Wikipedia "The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted."
I do not believe it is the proper position of the Missoula Chief of Police to substantively alter such a fundamental right. I do not believe that any government agency or individual has the authority to make such a sweeping change to a basic fundamental right in the dark without any semblance of the light of day. I also think this goes towards what someone else posted here earlier, sorry i can't recall who said it exactly, something along the lines of the uprising of the anti-Griz Football faction. Of all the things I've read, heard, and seen from this trial, rejecting the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence angers me more than anything.
