What if we had an Justice system based on guilty until proven innocent

The present Justice system works on the bases of innocent until proven guilty after an trail based on facts of the case. The charged are given the chance to plea guilty or not guilty.

Now what if we had an system based on instead guilty until proven innocent?

Are their any counties using this system ( dictatorships are likely to flavour this system ) what would the pros and cons be and how could appeals work in such an system?

What if I accused you of a crime right now... You'd be guilty until you could somehow prove a negative...

That's mad asa bag of ferrets.

What if I accused you of a crime right now... You'd be guilty until you could somehow prove a negative...

Someone would obviously have to be charged with a crime, in the normal way.

Have you no common sense ?

Someone would obviously have to be charged with a crime, in the normal way.

 

Have you no common sense ?

The idea is completely lacking in common sense.

But lets say that I accuse crookedspire of assaulting me, I make up a good story so the police charge him. He's now guilty and has to prove he isn't somehow... All I need to do is choose a time when he was alone and so has no good alibi and bosh, he's guilty.

It's a basic principle of rational thought that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. It's not a matter of benefit of the doubt and it's not a left/right or liberal/ conservative matter. This is just the only rational way to go about things.

The idea is completely lacking in common sense.

 

But lets say that I accuse crookedspire of assaulting me, I make up a good story so the police charge him. He's now guilty and has to prove he isn't somehow... All I need to do is choose a time when he was alone and so has no good alibi and bosh, he's guilty.

There would have to be some real evidence to charge him. In fact the criteria for bringing cases could the altered, to make sure the evidence had to be much stronger to charge someone.

I think the current system works fine, but I have an open mind and may be convinced for a change.

The Spanish Inquisition was based on that.

And nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, do they?

Better question: what if the criminal standard of proof ("beyond reasonable doubt") were reduced to the civil standard of proof ("balance of probabilities")?

More convictions?

OR

More unreliable convictions overturned on appeal?

its a bit like what certain people do on here lol, they dont provide evidence, you have to, even when its their story Oo

Better question: what if the criminal standard of proof ("beyond reasonable doubt") were reduced to the civil standard of proof ("balance of probabilities")?

 

More convictions?

OR

More unreliable convictions overturned on appeal?

This is not the time to start reducing the state's burden of proof. There's cctv everywhere and forensics advances continuously.

We can afford to raise the standard.

Better question: what if the criminal standard of proof ("beyond reasonable doubt") were reduced to the civil standard of proof ("balance of probabilities")?

 

More convictions?

OR

More unreliable convictions overturned on appeal?

Obviously more convictions. Criminal convictions rely on best evidence, i.e. Witness accounts, DNA, fingerprints, CCTV etc.

Balance of probabilities though relying on evidence not to the extent of criminal convictions relies more on who gives the most convincing argument.