Opening up the kangaroo court for the readers to take sides and tell me which approach is 'right' or 'wrong' here. Please offer your verdict (opinion) in the commentary and feel free to take offense with the approach that others may have for this subject.
Before we start, lets all remember that in the U.S.A. the approach is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. That's a pretty basic expectation, or perhaps it's a 'right' that is guaranteed by the constitution or the bill of rights, but you get the idea -- it's IMPORTANT that everyone is treated as if they are innocent until they have been proven guilty by a court of law. I think most people would chime in say this approach is invaluable and precious and that everyone should enjoy this protection under the law, but then again perhaps there are times when that approach shouldn't be used, no?
For example, see the following article (from The Washington Times, originally from Associated Press): Reinstatement of fired guards sought
With this important information to consider:
CUMBERLAND, Md. — Two state lawmakers from Western Maryland have asked the state's prison chief to reinstate 23 fired correctional officers until investigations into charges of brutality against inmates at two prisons are complete.
The officers — 15 at the medium-security Roxbury Correctional Institution near Hagerstown and eight at the maximum-security North Branch Correctional Institution near Cumberland — were fired this month. None of the unidentified officers has been charged pending the outcome of criminal investigations led by the Maryland State Police.
Prison officials have defended their actions, saying that when correctional officers are accused of wrongdoing, state law requires the agency to take any disciplinary action within 30 days after learning of the misconduct. Any officers subsequently exonerated can be reinstated with no loss of salary or benefits — as two other Roxbury officers were, several days after they were fired.
In most cases, I would expect that people would take the approach that until there has been an investigation and charges have been proven an individual shouldn't lose their job over claims of something bad having been done by the individual. Most cases. But... in a case where the public trust is violated, and where there are charges of brutality and abuse of power, would you perhaps change your mind and prefer the approach that the law apparently calls for (despite the concerns and complaints of the accused in this instance, and the lawmakers that are complaining on their behalf)?
If we're talking about a normal workplace and a fairly typical job, would you want the rights of employee protected and their job to be safe for them until there was proof something against company rules or against the law had been done? I'd betting yet for that, but you might think otherwise (feel free to say so below in the comments area). If we're talking about a case where someone is brutalizing someone else though, do we protect the supposed perpetrator or do we let the rights of the victim overrule those rights and instead err on the side of caution by not letting the accused perpetrator go back to work where they could inflict more damage or harm?
Please, tell me what you think. I do want to know and would enjoy seing what other's opinions are on the matter.
