As a lawyer, watching this film still has a lot of feelings. A considerable number of investigators do have the presumption of guilt and inducement to confess. In a case of child molestation, the public security released the suspect due to insufficient evidence. I asked the public security to issue a decision to terminate the investigation to confirm that my suspect would not leave a criminal record. Still fresh in my memory, I was asked by the police at the Public Security Bureau, lawyer, can you guarantee that he must have done nothing to that little girl, I said I am not God, I don’t know if he has done anything to that little girl, I only Knowing that the evidence against him is insufficient, he should be released and written as required by law. At that time, I was very surprised that the law stipulates the principle of presumption of innocence, that is to say, a person is presumed innocent in law, until there is evidence to prove his guilt, then he can be charged with a crime based on this, Instead of questioning me about the police's train of thought, first think the person is guilty, and then collect evidence for accusing him of guilt. Unexpectedly, the agents of the FBI, the highest investigative agency in the United States, in this film also have the same presumption of guilt thinking. Is it because their profession determines their way of thinking?
Many of my clients, just like the protagonist Richard, will believe what the police say and what they say and do to prove his innocence. But the job of the police is to accuse and fight crime. Once you are caught, their only purpose is to accuse you of guilt, not to prove your innocence.
View more about Richard Jewell reviews
