Innocent until proven guilty?

Actually TIME SERVED is being taken in to account for her crimes(lying to the police). Now in most cases there is the OFFER of bail. When someone is deemed a flight risk or considered a public danger then bail won't be offered(I'm not getting in to the technical terms for sake of keeping it simple). So in most cases you could be out on the streets if you can afford the bail or bail bondsman's fee. Now what if you are considered too dangerous to be free, yet you didn't do what they are accusing you of(and are found not guilty). Well that is a case where the law has to keep the public safe over the innocent until proven guilty. Most people in this nation can accept that principle, and would only have a problem with it if they couldn't get bail. It's one of the things that we give up for the greater good, as long as it works correctly.

Add: Also Innocent until Proven Guilty is more about the BURDEN OF PROOF. If we believed Guilty until proven innocent then the Burden would be on the Defendant, you'd have to PROVE you didn't do it. We put the burden on the State.

Under the Constitution we're entitled to a speedy trial and the average time spent in jail awaiting a trial is three months. Many times the attorneys for the Defendant will drag it out in order to gather enough evidence for their case but three years is ridiculous and she should have been granted bail. She didn't have anymore of her own kids to kill so she wasn't a danger to society.

She wasn't being held for the crimes she was accused of. She was held to make sure she would be there to stand trial. The judge decided she was a flight risk, and had her held without bail.

She couldn't post bail.

Once she posted bail, she could have left.

She could have had a trial much earlier, but for reasons of her own, she gave up her right to a speedy trial (which I think is a trial within 6 weeks, but don't quote me on the time).

There are people who are considered particularly dangerous or flight risk -- they are denied bail, period.

innocent until proven guilty is an idealistic notion. it would be nice if it were true in practice,but its usually the other way around "just in case". personally, i think the best solution would be to go ahead and arrest people under suspicion, but give them total anonymity until they are officially convicted.

you're harmless till shown to blame. by utilising regulation and by utilising elementary ordinary sense and information. Being shown to blame, you have too instruct they did the incorrect. otherwise, you do not have any evidence of something as a result they are harmless. Being to blame till shown harmless is extremely ignorant and judgmental.

Not by my standards, no. It seems most are guilty until proven innocent as to "protect the general public".

your forgetting she was found guilty of the charges and given credit for time served

uh...she was found guilty and did time served.

She's welcome to sue the state; I'd LOVE to see her prove she didn't kill her daughter in a court action.

No