A Quote by Edwin Meese

Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.
You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.
In our justice system, everyone who is charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. It should go without saying that people who are not charged with a crime also are presumed innocent.
My great crime wasn't refusing to represent an innocent man; my great crime was imagining that there was some path to racial justice that did not include those we view as 'guilty'.
Even the most innocent person, when cornered, is capable of a heartless crime.
With 'River Monsters', I am the investigator: here's the crime scene, I talk to witnesses, I establish a suspects list, I narrow it down; here's the prime suspect, I go and arrest the prime suspect - who often doesn't want to come quietly.
But many a crime deemed innocent on earth Is registered in Heaven; and these no doubt Have each their record, with a curse annex'd.
I deplore the horrible crime as child murder....no matter what the motive, love of ease, or desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent,the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed...but oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which compelled her to the crime.
Given my experience, I believe there are three compelling reasons why the death penalty should be replaced. (1) The criminal justice system makes mistakes and the possibility of executing innocent people is both inherently wrong and morally reprehensible; (2) My personal experience and crime data show the death penalty does not reduce crime; and (3) The death penalty wastes precious resources that could be best used to fight crime and solve thousands of unsolved homicides languishing in filing cabinets in understaffed police departments across the state.
In a system where 'innocent until proven guilty' is the ultimate maxim, a person who is charged but not yet convicted of a minor crime should not be sent to prison merely because he or she lacks the financial ability to post bail.
It doesn't help to fight crime to put people in prison who are innocent.
I would agree with [criminal suspects being subjected to a DNA test after arrest]...if that's one step closer to finding out who has (committed a crime), then I think we should do it.
Rather leave the crime of the guilty unpunished than condemn the innocent.
The best crime stories are always about the crime and its consequences - you know, 'Crime And Punishment' is the classic. Where you have the crime, and its consequences are the story, but considering the crime and the consequences makes you think about the society in which the crime takes place, if you see what I mean.
You are innocent until proven guilty. And if folks have come forward, whether it is judge Roy Moore or whether it is anyone else, and they have evidence to convict someone of a crime, then they should go through the legal process and do so.
Using flimsy evidence to spy on innocent citizens could very well be a crime.
We are not prepared to consider special category status for certain groups of people serving sentences for crime. Crime is crime is crime, it is not political
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!