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

[Futures Red]

What an insane thread

[monkey104]

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]

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]

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

[Obelix]

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'd have thought the inevitable outcome would be both of those would come to pass.

[sgtkate]

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 have never understood we why hold people who haven't been found guilty in prison before their trial. I can understand why some people who are seen as a potential danger to the public or a flight risk need to refused bail but how about we remember they are not guilty yet so if there is a GENUINE need to keep them somewhere secure, at least make that place comfortable with as much liberty as their risk status allows.

[Obelix]

The presumption always has been that bail is granted unless there is an excessive flight risk or of intereference with witnesses.

[unbeliever]

I have never understood we why hold people who haven't been found guilty in prison before their trial. I can understand why some people who are seen as a potential danger to the public or a flight risk need to refused bail but how about we remember they are not guilty yet so if there is a GENUINE need to keep them somewhere secure, at least make that place comfortable with as much liberty as their risk status allows.

 

Couldn't agree more.

There are valid reasons to make imprisonment for the purposes of punishment unpleasant. It's just plain wrong to make remand so.

 

---------- Post added 23-01-2017 at 10:54 ----------

 

The presumption always has been that bail is granted unless there is an excessive flight risk or of intereference with witnesses.

 

What if one cannot raise the funds for bail? Or can only do so at the expense of significant hardship whilst awaiting trial?

[petemcewan]

A little philosophical perspective on the topic.

 

Last Scene in the Finale of 2013 Korean Legal Drama I Hear Your Voice.

“Because only 80 out of 100 pieces of necessary proofs were in place, a [dangerous] criminal was once let off scot-free despite the overwhelming evidence against him. […] Yet a 100-piece jigsaw puzzle depicting an elephant will not look like a cat or a lion just because you only get 80 pieces correct. With 80 pieces, you can already see that it is an elephant.”

 

“The prosecutor likened this case to a jigsaw puzzle with 20 missing pieces. Of course, we cannot say that an elephant picture will turn into a lion picture just because the jigsaw lacks 20 pieces. But without the 20 pieces, we are unable to tell whether the elephant was crushing someone with its front foot or kicking a ball with it. What happens if upon seeing that it was kicking something, we assume that the elephant has killed a person and execute it, only to discover later that what lay under its foot was a ball not a human? A dead elephant cannot return to life.”

 

The full monty is in here.

 

https://aphilosopherchair.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/the-presumption-of-innocence/

Edited January 23, 2017 by petemcewan

[monkey104]

Couldn't agree more.

There are valid reasons to make imprisonment for the purposes of punishment unpleasant. It's just plain wrong to make remand so.

 

---------- Post added 23-01-2017 at 10:54 ----------

 

 

What if one cannot raise the funds for bail? Or can only do so at the expense of significant hardship whilst awaiting trial?

 

Bail is not based on monetary consideration in the U.K. You do not pay for bail it is based on several factors including severity of offence, chance of commiting further offences whilst on bail, interfering with witnesses etc.