Do you still believe that you're innocent until proven guilty?

{shrug}
OK. Wrong, but think that if you want.

Ok prove me wrong.^^

They hold you until you get bailed out, if there is no amount for bail it probably means you committed a major felony crime like capital murder. That would be the only reason they hold you until trial.

You are making too many negative assumptions, most people can make bail.

@Tropical_Willie: “They hold you until you get bailed out”

Where does this magic bail money come from? If you are poor, you’re more likely to rot in jail awaiting trial without having been convicted of a crime.

@Tropical_Willie: “You are making too many negative assumptions, most people can make bail.”

What exactly are the “negative assumptions” @SQUEEKY2 is making here? Can you cite the “most people can make bail” claim please? And more importantly, if 51% of people can make bail, are you ok with any people sitting in jail as though they have been convicted, even though they have not?

Note: This doesn’t just affect poor people who are accused, locked up, detained, lose their job, etc. These are also people who may be parents. It affects many people, and it’s a textbook case of a criminal “justice” system that works differently for the poor and wealthy.

I agree with @SQUEEKY2 and @hmmmmmm

You can be arrested for ‘suspected shoplifting’ with no evidence and sit in jail for a week or month if you cannot make bail.

On all levels of severity of a crime, you can also be charged with a crime you obviously did not commit. A judge demned me right to a public defender once, though legally he had to give me one. My case was settled successfully without one, but not to my full satisfaction.

I feel like I remember hearing somewhere that “you’re innocent until proven guilty” in the eyes of the court proceedings, but only within the court proceedings… whereas police need a reasonable suspicion to arrest someone (which is, I guess, a suspicion of guilt?)... so perhaps that’s the difference?

Or perhaps it’s an issue of societal trust? Where people aren’t necessarily trusted to show up for their day in court—innocent or not—so the system provides external pressures? (You’re held until the time, or you’ve given assets to a bail amount as a promise you’ll return, etc.?)

(Note: not saying those ought to be the reasons or are good reasons, just taking a stab at the question)

@Tropical_Willie – Here is a good introduction to bail reform. There are some stats and citations included in there (over 30 percent cannot afford to post bail, for example).

It’s more involved. If you’re suspected of a minor wrong doing like a misdemeanor then you’ll just get a summons to go to court. If a murder or something egregious then the public must be protected until the truth is revealed.
But during a trial you should be considered innocent by the jury until all the facts are presented.

Yes, but only in a court of law in the United States. Out in society, anyone is guilty of anything at any time without benefit of trial. One can be held in jail until trial, but there must be probable cause*.
*“Probable cause: a reasonable ground for supposing that a charge is well founded” -from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed.

It turns out that justice for all is actually about justice for all who can afford it!

That^^^ is the truth-the whole truth- and nothing but the truth!

Categorically so, yes!
Unless you’re OJ…obviously.

We have a system of laws. They are what govern our behavior so we don’t have anarchy. When you violate a law, there are penalties that need to be paid. We have police to enforce the laws. So if a police officer arrests you, it means he has reasonable cause to believe you are guilty of committing a crime. At that point, you are in a gray area when it comes to innocence and guilt. There is reasonable cause to believe you have committed a crime so you are detained until your trial. But you haven’t had that trial yet so you are not officially guilty. When you go to court, you are still considered innocent until proven guilty. If they don’t have adequate proof you have committed a crime, you should be found not guilty. If you have an alibi for whatever they are charging you with, you should be found not guilty. That doesn’t mean you have to prove your innocence, you are merely providing facts to make the case more clear for the judge and/or jury…facts the prosecution may not know or knows but is hoping to suppress. That’s called corruption. But in any case, until you are tried, you cannot be guilty. And if they cannot get you into a trial in a reasonable time frame (in the USA), they pretty much lose their window of opportunity and have to cut you loose.
Where the real confusion comes into play is when a crime is sensationalized by the press. When “news” people offer opinions and act like they are facts. When people say silly things like “Well, everyone knows….” before there has been any trial. At that point you are talking about a smear job and the accused is being tried in the court of public opinion. In that court you are generally guilty until you can prove your innocence.