this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
1291 points (99.6% liked)
Political Memes
8104 readers
2821 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I always heard "innocent until proven guilty" but I have not really seen it actually used in practice that much.
Yeah, I used to explain it to people by having them imagine watching someone rob a bank, and ask them if that person is guilty. They'd always say yes, and I'd explain that they're actually not: doing the crime isn't how someone becomes guilty, being found guilty in the court of law is how someone becomes guilty. That often got people to at least understand what the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" really meant, which I thought was enough. Turns out I should've also explained why that's actually a good thing, because now they're supporting just bypassing the court of law altogether.
Ooh, I like your example tho, how would you continue it if you were to explain why "innocent until proven guilty" is a good thing?
It's a bit tougher, which is why I usually didn't bother. I'd start by accusing them of robbing a bank, and when they would inevitably say they didn't, I'd point out that my made-up testimony alone is just as verifiable as their legitimate one alone. Then I'd explain how being able to convince a jury of people - who weren't present at the time of the crime - that a specific person is guilty is a good way to make sure there's actually enough verifiable evidence to ensure it happened, and isn't just a setup by someone lying to get them in trouble.
If the crime was so blatant that people obviously saw it happen, there would ideally be enough physical evidence that the crime happened, and if there isn't, then it would still be preferable to let a criminal walk free rather than make an innocent person go to jail because they couldn't prove they didn't do what someone else said they did.
The tough thing is that some people have too large of an ego, and will just ignore that entire point, thinking that the people they "know" to be criminals should just be locked up because "it's obvious," and then we get to the situation happening now.
Relevant quote from Anathem (2008) by Neal Stephenson:
Only for the wealthy