Guilty Until Proven Innocent ?

Firing people or making them resign just because they have been indicted by a grand jury seems to me to be a violation of due process - the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Tom Delay & Sami Al-Arian are examples & there are some who are hoping for Scooter Libby & Karl Rove.


Addendum: The Fifth Ammendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

~ what say you ?

Tags

  1. due process
  2. grand jury
  3. firing

Comments


Seth says
It is doubtful that a person under indictment could effectively perform their leadership duties; hence their resignation is quite in order. The Fifth Amendment does not apply here because "held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" is not a description of loosing one's job.

Mark de LA says
seth 2005-10-28 06:36:42 1742
It is doubtful that a person under indictment could effectively perform their leadership duties; hence their resignation is quite in order. The Fifth Amendment does not apply here because "held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" is not a description of loosing one's job.
While it is true that malicious prosecution can hamper a person's ability to carry on their duties in some context, you missed the part in the 5th ammendment that says "in any criminal case" so I highlighted it in red for you.

Seth says
Mark 2005-10-28 07:13:55 1742
seth 2005-10-28 06:36:42 1742
It is doubtful that a person under indictment could effectively perform their leadership duties; hence their resignation is quite in order. The Fifth Amendment does not apply here because "held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" is not a description of loosing one's job.
While it is true that malicious prosecution can hamper a person's ability to carry on their duties in some context, you missed the part in the 5th ammendment that says "in any criminal case" so I highlighted it in red for you.
I don't grok how "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property" translates in your world to should not be fired from a job. 

Mark de LA says
You might think of your livlihood as being directly related to liberty & property. My emphasis is on "due process" . If you would like to be fired just for allegations rather than a conviction of some crime - stand up and smile - I'm sure somebody will eventually take a pot-shot at you !

Mark de LA says
You don't get to take your lawyer with you when you speak in front of a Grand Jury - you can only take the 5th . I also think that you can be compelled to talk about others as long as you don't incriminate yourself. This makes the Grand Jury less than "due process" as far as guilt goes.