“because only guilty people are arrested”.
The sarcasm is not really funny.
Nor does it make a valid point. (Which I will chose to not take personally).
The presumption that only guilty people are arrested would obviate the need for a jury to begin with.
Sheesh.
Sure it does. Some people are biased to find guilt, such as inferring that association with an OMG or associated group, plus riding to or showing up at Twin Peaks, plus an altercation at Twin Peaks, is sufficient evidence to find conspiracy to commit aggravated assault or worse. Ride with dogs, wake up with fleas.
-- The presumption that only guilty people are arrested would obviate the need for a jury to begin with. --
In principle, yes. But principle is out the window, it appears. Some members of OMGs are criminals, people who choose to associate with them are therefore also criminals. An easy leap to make, many people make it. Once adhered to the conclusion, reasoned argument is a waste of time.
Plus, in principle, arrest only happens on probable cause that a crime has been committed. The points of evidence that I noted above are incontrovertible, defendants wouldn't deny them, so there is no need for a jury to weigh the testimony to determine if the facts have been "proved."
If the facts above are sufficient to have probable cause, they are sufficient to attach guilt. "As a matter of law," because no facts are in contest.
Facts above:
Nearly ninety-five percent of all criminal cases are disposed of by a guilty plea. Conviction: The Determination of Guilt or Innocence Without Trial, by Donald J. Newman.