FWIW? I've formed no opinion on this issue as to Singer's guilt or innocence. Right now as far as I'm concerned I think of him the same way before this story broke out. As "just a guy out there" once more evidence comes to play I may change my mind.
Just wanted to point out that as people not involved with the legal processes of this incident we're free to form our own opinions. "Innocent until proving guilty" does not apply in the Court of Public Opinion, it may form itself however it sees fit.
But he's also guaranteed the right to a fair trial. Which becomes pretty impossible when everyone begins calling him a pedophile.
Nonsense. Judges and juries are instructed on how to operate in a court of law in determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant. Juries are vetted doing
voir dire to weed out anyone who may have already formed a solid conclusion based on evidence presented in the media. Jury pools in most areas are too vastly large for EVERYONE to have formed the same opinion. 12 (or however many) people will certainly be found who can act as impartial jurors. If a sufficient impartial jury cannot be found there's always a change of venue to a place where an impartial jury CAN be found. Considering I doubt the millions of jury-serving eligible adults in this country will be convinced of, or even hear about, Singer's story I think a viable impartial jury can be found.
Just because the story hits the media doesn't mean that immediately all 300 million Americans hear about the story and instantly form an opinion, and especially one strong enough that cannot be put aside during a legal proceeding where evidence needs to be presented to prove guilt.
I prefer waiting for some actual evidence to appear before I condemn him.
As is your right and your choice. It's a choice I've made as well. But I, you, and everyone else is welcome to form whatever opinion they want because we have the freedom to do so. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to you and me and our personal thoughts. It only applies to how an accused criminal is treated by the government and how the case against him is built and presented. (I.E. guilt has to be proven, rather than innocence needing to be proven.)
If action is taken against Singer he is considered innocent. He will still have all of his rights and freedoms as an American citizen (at most curbed a bit by whatever conditions exist if he is arrested, charged, and released on bond pending trial), in the courtroom the Prosecution will have to present sufficient evidence to a jury in order to prove guilt. If they cannot do this sufficiently and/or has their case disproven or contradicted by the defense he will likely found innocent and released.
Simple as that, our justice and court system is not hard to understand.
Look no further than OJ Simpson. Accused of murdering his ex-wife and her beau. Lots of forensic and other kinds of evidence presented against him. He was found innocent. Why? You could argue a "star struck" jury, or you could remember the actual course of the trial and the case presented by the Prosecution and see that the way they presented evidence was rather week and the evidence handling was called into question building "reasonable doubt" into the case. Lots of questions in that case, obviously, given what decision the jury made but it's what happened.
But if someone wants to all Singer guilty they're more than free to do so. If this theoretical person is called to sit on a jury in any trial against Singer he'll then have to set-aside his per-concieved judgments and allow the Prosecution's case to be all he uses to determine guilt or innocence. If he's unable to do that he'll likely be weeded out during the
voir dire process.
Again, how this all works isn't hard to understand.
