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

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Obviously more convictions.

Yes, of course; but would they be safe? Would Justice be seen to have been adequately done?

[monkey104 10]

Yes, of course; but would they be safe? Would Justice be seen to have been adequately done?

 

Apologies, I read that incorrectly.

Yes, I could foresee the appeal courts working overtime.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Yes, I could foresee the appeal courts working overtime.

If so, what good would the change achieve?

[crookedspire 10]

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.

 

What if I had witnesses to show that I could not have been present at the time and place of the assault so clearly your statement is unture . For you to pick an time when I was alone would require you to follow me on a daily basis and for an prolonged time but what if that I changed my plans and you pick an time because you have based it on observation of my daily life only to find out I was not present to do the crime?

 

---------- Post added 22-01-2017 at 21:26 ----------

 

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?

 

I think the result would be the same regardless of the system used no justice system is 100% foolproof is it.

[monkey104 10]

If so, what good would the change achieve?

 

I'm not saying it would!

[The Joker 10]

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?

 

I guess you meant countries . . . Yes, I believe Japan have one, and while I'm all for criminals to be punished for their crimes, I'm not so keen on them being punished for ones they haven't committed.

 

Which the Japanese system is set to do, with it's 99% conviction rate. It's skewed against known offenders, and immigrants?

 

A couple of links for your interest:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20810572

 

http://www.tokyoweekender.com/2014/12/guilty-until-proven-innocent-forced-confessions-in-the-japanese-legal-system/

Edited January 22, 2017 by The Joker
Added links

[macmellus 10]

One has to ask what the implications of either have on an individual. I know someone who was locked up for nine months before being acquitted due to lack of evidence. During that nine months, the innocent until proven guilty principal didn't make a jot of difference.

[Cyclone 10]

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.

 

I think you've let your brain fall out.

 

---------- Post added 23-01-2017 at 07:29 ----------

 

What if I had witnesses to show that I could not have been present at the time and place of the assault so clearly your statement is unture .

That's why I specifically said that I'd have to pick a time when you were alone and so had no alibi.

For you to pick an time when I was alone would require you to follow me on a daily basis and for an prolonged time but what if that I changed my plans and you pick an time because you have based it on observation of my daily life only to find out I was not present to do the crime?

No it wouldn't.

I'd just have to identify that you were alone once at a specific time and report that that was when you assaulted me.

And this is a trivial example with no effort put into it.

[Futures Red 11]

What an insane thread

[monkey104 10]

One has to ask what the implications of either have on an individual. I know someone who was locked up for nine months before being acquitted due to lack of evidence. During that nine months, the innocent until proven guilty principal didn't make a jot of difference.

 

I daresay that there would have been some pretty compelling evidence for him to have been remanded.

[unbeliever 10]

How about applying the scientific method?

The CPS would put forth a hypothesis and the means to falsify it.

This comes into a trial often these days but it's not always well done and not weighted appropriately.

[spilldig 188]

Many people will accuse someone of something with little or no proof. For many reasons this is a non-starters.