The fact that some idiots can't understand why legal courts only "suspect/accuse" people of crimes before sentencing them annoys me. The latest example was a fugitive who got caught in Finland when an off duty police officer came to the barbershop at the same time as he was getting a haircut. And since one of the many things he is suspected of is a jail break (which he is obviously guilty of) some people are treating this as the final proof that Finnish legal system is a failure.
Because apparently it would be better if people guilty unless proven innocent? I mean who cares that he is merely "suspected" of escaping from prison? He is going to get proven guilty unless it turns out that this is a completely different person or that he was supposed to get out, it's just formality.
To be fair, calling it "suspected" when the guy is supposed to be in jail but isn't does sound pretty stupid. It's a formality, but I think it's one of those things where if he tried pleading not guilty, the trial would look like this.
Prosecutor: Were you in the prison on (day)?
Defendant: No.
Prosecutor: You were supposed to be according to your sentence and prison records. The prosecution rests.
We have the same silly formality in America, and it always makes me laugh when someone is suspected or alleged after being arrested during the crime.
