Jump to content

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

Recommended Posts

For law to be just, it must be fair. It must convict the guilty and not the innocent. To assume that all those accused are innocent until proven guilty is insurance against most unjust convictions.

 

The burden of proof is on those making the complaint . It is up to the complainant to prove guilt, rather than the defendant having to prove their innocence. If the default position is innocence, we need not fear being convicted with little or no evidence of our crime.

 

From my personal experience of jury service (twice ). I would suggest that every juror be given a reminder of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

From the juries that I sat on,it was clear to me that the fact that someone was on trial was proof enough- for some of my fellow jurors- of guilt. In fact ,the first trial I was on, I asked one of the jury why he thought the guy was guilty. In reply he said, “ He looks effing guilty “. Of course I didn’t share that view. It went to a retrial (Case: Fraudulently Trading ). I don’t know what happened at the retrial.

The second one was,” Wounding With Intent “..

We found him not guilty. As a jury , we couldn’t establish ,beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant had done the stabbing. The defendant looked a bit of a desperado ,but one couldn’t presume him guilty because of the way he looks.

The whole experience for me, proved that people are quick to presume guilt and come to jury service believing that the accused has to prove their innocence.

In addition, I do believe that not knowing the accused “previouses “ assists in

holding onto the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. If justice is to prevail

there is no alternative.

 

Addendum . I do not know if the precept , “Innocent until proven guilty “ holds in cases of historic sex abuse.

 

 

 

Note:

 

“ There are few passages in the English law reports better known than that in the speech of Viscount Sankey, the Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords appeal case of Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, when he said:

“Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt … . If at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given either by the prosecution or the prisoner ... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.” ([1935] AC 462, at pp.481-482). “

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

OK, so you are accused of murdering some one at 1am when you where home alone sleeping. How do you prove you did not murder the person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote=petemcewan;11588942

 

Addendum . I do not know if the precept , “Innocent until proven guilty “ holds in cases of historic sex abuse.

 

 

 

The burden of proving the case rests on the prosecution whatever the nature of the charge; shop theft or murder or sexual offences whatever the age of the alleged incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, so you are accused of murdering some one at 1am when you where home alone sleeping. How do you prove you did not murder the person?

 

Are you asking this because you think that if you can't prove innocense, or if it is very difficult to prove innocence, then it invalidates the question? As crookedspire says, it would mainly only be favoured by a dictatorship where those in charge would want to be seen to be handing out punishment rather than finding the guilty party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you asking this because you think that if you can't prove innocense, or if it is very difficult to prove innocence, then it invalidates the question? As crookedspire says, it would mainly only be favoured by a dictatorship where those in charge would want to be seen to be handing out punishment rather than finding the guilty party.

 

Except people arent stupid and would realise that people would be found guiltyu because they couldnt find enough evidence rather than being guilty. Dictators much prefer innocence till proven guilty and then lowering the threshold, bending the rules or fabricating the evidence. If you want to hand out punishment then they can simply have new laws. I dont believe there are dictatorships who use this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except people arent stupid and would realise that people would be found guiltyu because they couldnt find enough evidence rather than being guilty. Dictators much prefer innocence till proven guilty and then lowering the threshold, bending the rules or fabricating the evidence. If you want to hand out punishment then they can simply have new laws. I dont believe there are dictatorships who use this.

 

I suppose it depends on whether we're talking about crimes against the state, in which collecting evidence wouldn't be a priority, or crimes against other civilians, in which the state would want to be seen to be in control as a priority over proving guilt. I don't think it matters what people realise if they're ruled by fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose it depends on whether we're talking about crimes against the state, in which collecting evidence wouldn't be a priority, or crimes against other civilians, in which the state would want to be seen to be in control as a priority over proving guilt. I don't think it matters what people realise if they're ruled by fear.

 

So give me some xamples of where this has happened in dictatorships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off the top of my head, the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China is a recent example of how a dictatorship might treat its civilians. Though they all may be guilty of practising Falun Gong, which seems to be a crime only in China, the state's priority, I believe, was for them to be seen to be in charge. There are countless examples of this type of thing since the Chinese Communist Revolution. People were thought of as guilty if their parents had 'bourgeois' parentage. When the Red Guard went about their public humiliations and violence against anything resembling 'anti-party' I doubt they went about searching for evidence. Like you say, they bent the rules and lowered the threshold. In this case, the threshold was whatever the individuals wanted it to be. The real fear, from people on either side of the punishments, was to be thought of as anti-party.

 

Can't think of any more off the top of my head. Maybe we could go to Africa. Mugabe doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to be thinking, 'Now people aren't stupid and will realise if I'm not gathering evidence to prove the guilt of people I want to bump off, therefore I'm going to fabricate some evidence.' It might be true if it has some international ramifications, I guess.

Can you give me any examples of this?

'Dictators much prefer innocence till proven guilty and then lowering the threshold, bending the rules or fabricating the evidence.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Off the top of my head, the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China is a recent example of how a dictatorship might treat its civilians. Though they all may be guilty of practising Falun Gong, which seems to be a crime only in China, the state's priority, I believe, was for them to be seen to be in charge. There are countless examples of this type of thing since the Chinese Communist Revolution. People were thought of as guilty if their parents had 'bourgeois' parentage. When the Red Guard went about their public humiliations and violence against anything resembling 'anti-party' I doubt they went about searching for evidence. Like you say, they bent the rules and lowered the threshold. In this case, the threshold was whatever the individuals wanted it to be. The real fear, from people on either side of the punishments, was to be thought of as anti-party.

 

Can't think of any more off the top of my head. Maybe we could go to Africa. Mugabe doesn't strike me as the kind of guy to be thinking, 'Now people aren't stupid and will realise if I'm not gathering evidence to prove the guilt of people I want to bump off, therefore I'm going to fabricate some evidence.' It might be true if it has some international ramifications, I guess.

Can you give me any examples of this?

'Dictators much prefer innocence till proven guilty and then lowering the threshold, bending the rules or fabricating the evidence.'

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Trials

 

Moscow show trials by Stalin, they seem bent as a nine bob note. Fabricated evidence, foced confessions etc. The importance of show trials is to show the state as protector and the defendants as guilty. It doesnt suit them as presumed guilty when it looks better if they have the illusion of pleading no guilty, but are then given a trial (bent) and proven guilty. You get the propaganda victory, that you gave them a fair chance and they lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That kind of thing happened in China too. Funny, I was just wishing I had added 'in party politics' alongside international ramifications.

Anyhow, I'm glad we got that sorted and you agree with me. I knew I was right all along.

See ya'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That kind of thing happened in China too. Funny, I was just wishing I had added 'in party politics' alongside international ramifications.

Anyhow, I'm glad we got that sorted and you agree with me. I knew I was right all along.

See ya'.

 

Dont think we did, but nvm. Beats the stupid brexit thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A triumph of British justice.

 

 

"Anything less than a seven and he's guilty".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.