Jurors are carefully screened for prior bias, and elaborate instructions are given to jurors on the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There are some exceptions, but the system works well.
It's true that the media sensationalizes some cases and leaps to conclusions. However relatively few cases rise to the media spotlight and in even fewer cases does the media bias influence the jury. The opinion question is "what we live by" and what we live by is the legal system, and not press speculation.
The reason it doesn't work is that we use a "jury of your peers". So a bunch of people with no legal knowledge or training and only a brief overview before the trial get to decide the verdict. They do not have an adequate education to know how to filter their biases in order to truly know what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means. They do not have an adequate education to know how to think about and process all the information in the trial. What's worse is that in many states it is illegal for jurors to take notes during a trial. Whose idea was that? How are jurors supposed to render a valid verdict without being able to take notes?
We should have a professional jury, you should go to college and then you can become a juror, and jurors should be able to take notes and ask questions during the trial.
There's always a pre-disposition in the court system based on race and socioeconomic situation of the suspected criminal. It's sad but true. However, when it comes to a well off white man on trial the statement 'innocent until proven guilty' is true. When a minority is on trial the statement doesn't apply.
This is a right that I would definitely say is often forgotten due to the media and how it alienates people and leaves the public believing every single word that the media is telling them. This right is one that really is not enforced even in the court room, although the law may say we are all innocent until proven guilty in court it almost seems like it is the opposite, you are guilty until proven innocent.
I believe anyone who thinks we still live by the rule, "innocent until proven guilty," is a fool. I know of one person who spent time in jail because they didn't fully understand that often judgment is passed first and you're left to prove your innocents. I believe if you examine any breaking crime you will see a borage of finger pointing.
Innocent until prove guilty is a principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and, relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence. Think about it if you don't do any wrong and cops, government assume you are you usually get in trouble or arrested right away then as they arrest you they read you your Miranda rights. I think that when government says this saying it should mean what its meant. Words of government should not be switched around.
How many hundreds of innocent people went to prison because of a corrupt and racist LAPD? And nobody cared. The acquittal of an obviously guilty person was what it finally took for the system to begin worrying about its flaws. We reached the opposite end of the spectrum our forefathers envisioned. It used to be "better 10 guilty go free before one innocent is convicted." Now it's "It will take the guilty going free before we will worry about wrongfully convicting the innocent."
I have some experience in the criminal justice system (no, not that kind). It ain't Law and Order. 99% of the cases are something along the lines of: guy with expired tags gets pulled over, has 10 warrants and an outstanding probation violation so he gets arrested and the cops find a bunch of meth in the trunk when they impound the car. The simple fact is there is absolutely no question the person who got arrested is guilty AT LEAST 9 times out of 10, so expecting people to pretend that's not the case, while great on paper, just isn't going to happen.
For example, when arresting someone, police talk to them as if they commited it.
Sometimes people are un-justly arrested. It is however a good system to live by. For example, If someone is accused of murder, and he turns out innocent, what should the police do then? It is un-just.
With the way society deals with criminal injustice today, our media often rules a verdict before the justice system has. Whether through ignorance or not, many people pick up the morning paper, or scroll through their twitter news feed, their minds soaking up the information being fed to them, without stopping to question what they are being told. They read of a person being held trial for murder? Their thoughts are of HOW they WILL be punished, not IF they SHOULD be punished.
I can't blame a system for this rule. The system has been revised many times and I find it quite well and useful. Not flawless, but useful.
The problem is not the system but the people itself. As human beings, we run on our own inner thoughts. These includes our morality, our logic and for the sake of this question, our views and opinions. The problem with that is that everyone holds a different opinion. Our opinions fuel us and gives us motivation to move forward. At the same time, it can be our faults and our weakness.
If it was automated, it'd have so many problems since our systems isn't advance enough to handle these kinds of complicated matter. If it was done by people (which it is), the outcome may differ from what it should be since there are too many variables in the form of the human being.
So, no. We don't live under that rule. Our system says that we do but in reality, we don't.
Not yet, at least.
Check your local paper, frequently the front page will have an article about someone who has been arrested for a crime. Being arrested happens solely off of reasonable evidence to deign the arrested individual a suspect. Depending on the situation, this accused person is detained temporarily before their trial. In dangerous cases, this is unfortunately necessary. In low profile cases, many are released on bail. Either way, depending on how good/bad of a news day it is, the newspaper will frequently publish a story listing the person's "crimes," using that person's name. While jurors are occasionally held back from seeing media, which benefits the accused in a trial environment, the public is told to believe that the accused is guilty. Reguardless of the outcome, the public treats the accused as guilty because the news media, which we are taught are journalists sharing facts and are instead an entertainment industry, treats the person as guilty. While they will publish a story about the arrest, they will frequently not publish a story if they have been proven innocent, which by the way, no one should need. As long as there is reasonable possibility that the accused was not guilty, then according to our own laws, that person is NOT GUILTY. I apologize if this rambles without making too much sense.