Julian Assange Quotes

It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one.

A criminal trial is never about seeking justice for the victim. If it were, there could be only one verdict: guilty.

I think most defense attorneys know, to some extent, their clients are guilty.

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.

Indictments don't mean anything; men are entitled to be innocent until they are proved guilty.

What right, then, but that of power, can authorize the punishment of a citizen so long as there remains any doubt of his guilt? This dilemma is frequent. Either he is guilty, or not guilty. If guilty, he should only suffer the punishment ordained by the laws, and torture becomes useless, as his confession is unnecessary. If he be not guilty, you torture the innocent; for, in the eye of the law, every man is innocent whose crime has not been proved

If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

It is better to risk sparing a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.

Due process does not require that every conceivable step be taken, at whatever cost, to eliminate the possibility of convicting an innocent person. To conclude otherwise would all but paralyze our system for enforcement of the criminal law.

Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections.

Our system, for readily apparent reasons, is far superior to those in nations, mostly totalitarian, which presume an arrested person is guilty and place the burden on the accused to prove his innocence.

There is a presumption of innocence in American law that means that you cannot consider making someone guilty until all the evidence is in the the procedures are completed.

You can't charge somebody with something they have not done.

All judges had rather that ten innocent should suffer than that one guilty should escape.

Whether a man is guilty or innocent, we have to find that out by due process of law.

Our constitutionally-based criminal justice system places a high value on protecting the innocent. Among its central tenets is the idea that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to convict someone without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Everyone is innocent unless proven otherwise.

Believing a person deserves a defence is not the same as doing anything in your power to get him off scot-free.

I have no better way of judging guilt or innocence than anyone else.

Decisions on a matter as serious as charging an individual with a crime cannot be decided on anything less than complete examination of all available evidence. Anything less is not justice.

I never sympathise with the accused unless there's a chance the accused is not guilty, but I certainly don't ever sympathise with the criminal.

No man can be judged a criminal until he is found guilty; nor can society take from him the public protection until it has been proved that he has violated the conditions on which it was granted. What right, then, but that of power, can authorize the punishment of a citizen so long as there remains any doubt of his guilt?

Just because you're convicted in a court room doesn't mean you're guilty of something.

Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people; and behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him.

When I was initially charged I still thought I was not guilty because I had followed the rules.