Innocent until PROVEN guilty?

Before I launch into this, I've been called out more than once to explain some of the things I'd change in our legal system. I've avoided discussing it; not because I don't have ideas, but because I don't think those ideas can be really discussed in a few paragraphs. So, I've made a single point here and I didn't even go as far into the point as I wanted. However, I think the very basic idea is covered here, and if further clarification is needed, please just comment and I'll address. So, here goes:

The rights given every American citizen by the Constitution of the United States, specifically, the 5th & 6th Amendments to that Constitution, affords every person the right to protection from self incrimination, and to legal representation. I believe the legal current standing of these rights is antiquated and must be brought before the courts yet again for further clarification. Are we only afforded these rights at the moment of arrest or do we enjoy these rights always, at all times? If the former, than my argument is moot and a waste of my time in even typing. If the latter is true, then I believe it's high time that this right stop being trampled by the legal system.

As an American, I'm aware of the standard rights afforded all citizens by the police if ever I am arrested. As an American, I know that the very first right read to me in my Miranda warning is that I have the right to remain silent. I also know that if I give up that right, everything I say can and will be used against me in a court of law.

The reason we have those rights read to us is because of a Supreme Court ruling(Miranda vs Arizona). This same ruling also cited the 6th Amendment right of legal representation. However, as time progresses, it becomes more and more clear that neither of these rights is being respected under any investigation that any law enforcement agency in this country undertakes in any covert manner.

If I have the right to an Attorney, and I have the right to not incriminate myself, then how can any person or court take those rights away from me without having convicted me of any crime? Further, they are not only violating my 5th and 6th Amendment rights, they are also in violation of Miranda vs Arizona, which states that both of these rights must be waived in order that any statements by a suspect can be legally used.

If I only have rights at the point of arrest, what good are these rights? Why is it that all of my communications can be spied on without my ever having been informed of being a suspect in a criminal investigation? How can I employ my right to not incriminate myself, and my right to silence on that behalf, and my right to have an attorney present, if I don't know that any of these rights are being violated until it's too late?

Yes, I know this is an academic argument. I know that if all suspects were informed that they were going to be investigated BEFORE that investigation was allowed to focus on them, that we'd have a lot of criminals getting away with a lot more crime.

But isn't that assuming guilt? Isn't our county's entire legal system supposed to be based on innocence until proven otherwise? Those are just useless words unless we make them more. How many times have we seen someone tried and convicted in the media before charges were even brought? Richard Jewels? The Duke Lacrosse rape case? More others than I can even begin to list?

I've heard a lot of people claim that our rights are being violated, that our liberties are being eroded. When I look at these things, I usually disagree. However, when I look at the situation cited above, I see that erosion. I see people being set up for months, or even years. Thousands or even tens of thousands of pages of evidence compiled and prepared before they are even aware that they're being investigated.

Granted, if you're a criminal you're likely to be on alert. You know you've committed crimes and likely have taken, or are still taking steps to cover those crimes. So the argument that criminals will be convicted less often if they're informed is slightly weakened in this light. What about the innocent man who has no clue he's being investigated? Isn't he the most likely, in his ignorance, to be harmed by the current process?

Unless you have money, a LOT of money, how can you ever expect to fight that overwhelming avalanche of evidence. Evidence that has purposely been collected and organized in a way that makes you look guilty? The short answer is, you can't.

I'm sure this will be picked apart, and the debate is welcome. Just please keep it civil and on topic?

Comments Welcome

The strength of the willow tree.

In all things there is the yielding and the unyielding, the interminably stubborn, and the infinitely pliable. In these things we find the beautiful contrast that is life.

The Stream, in her wisdom, gracefully conquers the mighty Mountain, time and again. The Leaves whisper their strength to their sister, Wind, while the proud Crag bears his mighty chest to her, glorying in his own power.

The Sea wraps her arms gently around the shores of her Other, passively embracing his every contour. He stands tall against her embrace, and she basks in this. She coyly trails her gentle touch as she recedes, a promise of her return, for he cannot follow.

The Oak, standing so straight and proud, yearns for the sweet caress of the Mistletoe, though he knows that in the end she will devour him...