- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,271
- Reaction score
- 28,075
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
We should be grateful we do have a "presumption of innocence" which requires the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are countries where a person accused of a crime is presumed guilty and has the burden of proving his innocence. This is based on the idea that the State would not be charging the defendant unless he had done something wrong. The problem is that all the cards are stacked in the State's favor under this system. Aside from the fact the state has all the power and resources and the defendant has only his own to fight back with, the defendant is also facing the difficulty of proving a negative; i.e. "I did not do it."
That requires either an iron-clad alibi, meaning incontrovertible proof the defendant was elsewhere at the time; or incontrovertible proof (i.e. video evidence) that while he may have been present he did not act as the charges claim. Absent that, he is bound for prison.
There are countries where a person accused of a crime is presumed guilty and has the burden of proving his innocence. This is based on the idea that the State would not be charging the defendant unless he had done something wrong. The problem is that all the cards are stacked in the State's favor under this system. Aside from the fact the state has all the power and resources and the defendant has only his own to fight back with, the defendant is also facing the difficulty of proving a negative; i.e. "I did not do it."
That requires either an iron-clad alibi, meaning incontrovertible proof the defendant was elsewhere at the time; or incontrovertible proof (i.e. video evidence) that while he may have been present he did not act as the charges claim. Absent that, he is bound for prison.