crookedspire Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 What if I accused you of a crime right now... You'd be guilty until you could somehow prove a negative... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 That's mad asa bag of ferrets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 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 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacktari Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 The Spanish Inquisition was based on that. And nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted January 22, 2017 Share Posted January 22, 2017 its a bit like what certain people do on here lol, they dont provide evidence, you have to, even when its their story Oo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now