Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

I'm just trying to convey that 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'guilty until proven innocent', in practise, aren't as black and white as they sound. He was treated just as he would have been if he was guilty.

 

 

Not really. It is one of the only times that you can be detained for something you may do, based on past history ie, previous fail to appear, history of offending whilst on bail, history of coercing witnesses or for his own safety.

It could have been something that he has stated he will do whilst on bail, i.e. Made threats.

Unfortunately you weren't there and can only say what your mate told you which may not be the truth or he had withheld something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unravelling the double negatives you mean you want more cases where there is doubt about guilt to be sentenced?

 

How do you propose recompensing those that are convicted and incarcerated who are in fact innocent then?

I don't propose anything. As I stated earlier, I think the current system works fine and was only looking at the presumption of innocence in a court environment, from a different angle. Any changes would be too confusing for some to understand, so best to leave well alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't propose anything. As I stated earlier, I think the current system works fine and was only looking at the presumption of innocence in a court environment, from a different angle. Any changes would be too confusing for some to understand, so best to leave well alone.

 

If you think that guilty unless innocent is acceptable you need to propose how you are going to deal with the consequences of that. So how are you going to address the inevitable situations when someone innocent is banged up for a few decades because they couldn't mount an adequate defence?

Link to comment
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?

 

I'll tell you what. You were seen about 6 years ago speeding, doing 60 mph in a 30mph zone. So I'll find you guilty, add 3 points on your license and fine you £60... You can have it back and I'll take the points off, if you can prove your innocence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/b]

 

Not really. It is one of the only times that you can be detained for something you may do, based on past history ie, previous fail to appear, history of offending whilst on bail, history of coercing witnesses or for his own safety.

It could have been something that he has stated he will do whilst on bail, i.e. Made threats.

Unfortunately you weren't there and can only say what your mate told you which may not be the truth or he had withheld something

 

Your second sentence isn't clear. What does 'it' refer to.

He was imprisoned whilst awaiting trial. Regardless of what he'd done in the past, he was not found guilty of this crime, yet was imprisoned. As soon as the hearing finished, he was released.

If you're detained for something you may do based on your history then it is more like 'guilty until proven innocent' isn't it?

 

https://www.gov.uk/charged-crime/remand

Edited by macmellus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll tell you what. You were seen about 6 years ago speeding, doing 60 mph in a 30mph zone. So I'll find you guilty, add 3 points on your license and fine you £60... You can have it back and I'll take the points off, if you can prove your innocence.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

You can't just appeal it, you need to prove that you were innocence. Only then will you be refunded and the points taken back.

 

There's a difference between appeal and proving your innocence. In fact proving isn't enough, it has to be proved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll tell you what. You were seen about 6 years ago speeding, doing 60 mph in a 30mph zone. So I'll find you guilty, add 3 points on your license and fine you £60... You can have it back and I'll take the points off, if you can prove your innocence.

 

 

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

Link to comment
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.