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

[Gamston 10]

I think you will find there would still be a need for an NIP - unless the OP suggests doing away with all the usual procedural requirements involved in a prosecution? Maybe its back to the French revolution and all you needed to do was accuse someone and it could lead to the loss of said accused's head via the guillotine ..... surely not

What is an NIP ?

[Cyclone 10]

Cyclone. It's obvious you haven't a clue. To complicated for you to disentangle.

 

I put the link so people could read on.

 

I don't want an argument with you matey-it's a waste of my time.

 

Sure, I'm known for it.

 

Tell me, how's the batteries are a generator business working out?

 

---------- Post added 24-01-2017 at 18:29 ----------

 

Witnesses would disprove it.

 

No they wouldn't. I've already made sure that you were alone at the time. You've got no alibi, you're going down.

You've proposed a system that is incredibly easy to abuse, and that's with 30 seconds thought put into it.

 

---------- Post added 24-01-2017 at 18:31 ----------

 

You would appeal it then any fine would be refunded and points removed.

 

Appeal it on what basis. You have to PROVE you are innocent. No burden of proof required on the other side, it's your system remember.

[redfox 10]

What is an NIP ?

 

Notice of intended prosecution. Have a google -

[Gamston 10]

Notice of intended prosecution. Have a google -

Thank you Redfox . I did google and Ninjas in Pyjamas came up.

[Andbreathe 10]

That's mad asa bag of ferrets.

 

Best answer?

 

I think you've let your brain fall out..

 

A close second..?

[Jeffrey Shaw 92]

proving your innocence. In fact proving isn't enough, it has to be proved.

No. A defendant is merely seeking to prove that he/she is not guilty of the offence charged.

That's not the same as proving innocence.

[redfox 10]

No. A defendant is merely seeking to prove that he/she is not guilty of the offence charged.

That's not the same as proving innocence.

 

Dear Jeffrey - since when in the criminal justice system has a defendant actively had to 'prove' they are not guilty?

 

The burden rests entirely upon the Crown - they must satisfy the jury so that they are sure of guilt - a defendant need prove nothing.

[Futures Red 11]

No. A defendant is merely seeking to prove that he/she is not guilty of the offence charged.

That's not the same as proving innocence.

 

In reality what you claim wouldn't work because they'd probably be a lot more open cases not being closed. Its like saying how longs a piece of string... Seeking to prove innocence I think would be much more difficult to prove as opposed to proving their guilty.

[Obelix 11]

Dear Jeffrey - since when in the criminal justice system has a defendant actively had to 'prove' they are not guilty?

 

The burden rests entirely upon the Crown - they must satisfy the jury so that they are sure of guilt - a defendant need prove nothing.

 

I think he was referring to what you would have to do in the proposed world of reversal of presumption of innocence...

[Jeffrey Shaw 92]

I think he was referring to what you would have to do in the proposed world of reversal of presumption of innocence...

Thank you; yes.

[jensen1378 10]

An utterly stupid idea!

Edited February 2, 2017 by jensen1378

[Lockdoctor 10]

I also think it is stupid to change