Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
By: Asal Issa
There are two parts to Human Right Article 11, “We Are All Innocent Until Proven Guilty”, which according to the United Nations, is officially -
- “(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
- (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.”
Part one basically means that until we are proven guilty with admissible evidence, we are innocent.
Part two basically means that you can’t be punished for something that you did that was made illegal after you did it. Also, if the law changes so that the punishment for the crime you committed gets worse, you only get the punishment that was around when you broke the law.
However, this presentation will mainly be referring to the first part, as is more well known, and it is what most topics about this subject pertain to.
Innocence Canada and A.C. Grayling are two groups/countries/places/people ensuring that my human right is being upheld.
Innocence Canada is helping to exonerate innocent people who are in jail. A.C. Grayling has spoken out about how we as a society need to remember that we are all innocent until proven guilty (paraphrased) when he was asked to withdraw from speaking at Oxford Union when the president, Ben Sullivan, was accused of allegations.
In terms of effectiveness, Innocence Canada has helped to exonerate 21 people so far, and is still trying to get more. Their methods of doing this must be very effective as it can take months, years, and even decades to exonerate people. However, A.C. Grayling’s approach may not be as effective, but is still better than doing nothing. A.C. Grayling has managed to create a controversy which often come with a conversation that gets people talking and thinking.
There are two ways I think that the law system could work better in order to protect this human right:
- Way One: Not disclosing who is the suspect until the case has ended and a verdict has been given.
Pros: - Protects the suspects identity and reputation if they are innocent,
Cons: Prevents others from speaking out if the suspect has committed a similar (or dissimilar) crime against them,
- Way Two: Treating the alleged victim like they are correct in medical locations such as therapy, but in law, court, or legal locations, being neutral and unbiased,
Pros: Stays neutral, doesn't say anyone is right or wrong, fair to both,
Cons: Can make victims/suspects feel very frustrated if they are innocent, can make victims feel like they are being turned on in legal settings,
There are many ways this human right has been violated in society, whether it be an unfair/biased judge/jury assuming you are guilty and giving you an unfair trial, to having a false accusation in your name and your reputation being slandered, to being blamed for stealing gum, when, in reality, it was in fact Jeffery who stole the gum.
Unfortunately, this right is still being violated today.
There are many factors that aid in the violation of this right, such as corrupt judges/juries, and society being misinformed,
In 1989, the Customs Military Police arrested Acosta Calderón, under suspicion of drug trafficking. Acosta Calderón's statement was not received by a Judge until two years after his detention and he was not notified of his right to consulate assistance during the five years he was in custody pending trial. Mr. Calderón was found guilty of drug charges on December 8, 1994, despite the lack of evidence of drugs appearing at any time. He was released on July 29, 1996 for having served part of his sentence while he was in prison pending trial, but after he was released in July of 1996, the Commission lost contact with him. The Court found the State violated the American Convention on Human Rights.
On June 17, 1966, two men shot up the Lafayette Bar and Grill in Paterson, New Jersey. The bartender and a customer were killed; two other customers were badly wounded, and one later died. Rubin Carter and his friend John Artis were arrested while driving the streets of Paterson, largely because Rubin Carter’s car looked like the one of the murderers. Police found an unspent .32 caliber bullet and a 12-gauge shotgun shell in Carter’s car that could have been used in the crime. The city’s police department offered cash rewards for information and two career criminals, who had been committing burglary in the neighborhood at the time of the murders, agreed to testify.
Rubin and John were convicted in May 1967. The two eyewitnesses renounced what they said in 1974. Rubin and John were freed for a new trial, but then one eyewitness renounced his recantation. The second jury found Carter and Artis guilty again in 1976, but in 1985, Judge H. Lee Sarokin overturned the conviction on the grounds of constitutional violations.
On June 17, 1966, two men attacked at gun point in the Lafayette Bar and Grill in Paterson, New Jersey. The bartender and a customer were killed and two other customers were badly injured, one of which later died. Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, a middleweight boxer, and his friend John Artis were arrested while driving the streets of Paterson, a large part because Rubin Carter’s car looked like the car of the murderers. Police found an unused .32 caliber bullet and a 12-gauge shotgun shell in Rubin's car that might have been used in the crime. The city’s police department offered cash rewards for information and two criminals - who made their money by committing crimes - who had been committing burglary in the neighborhood that night, agreed to testify. Rubin Carter and John Artis were convicted in May 1967. The two witnesses renounced what they said in 1974. Rubin and John were freed for a new trial, but then one witness recanted his renouncement. The second jury found Carter and Artis guilty again in 1976, but in 1985, Judge H. Lee Sarokin overturned the conviction on the grounds of constitutional violations.
As Canadians, we can:
- Call for people who have been accused to still be assumed innocent
- Call for reform by the government
- When we are legal voting age, we can vote for people who support this right
- If it's legal, join peacful protests
- If you can and want to, donate to Human Rights organizations