On 1/8/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And if you've ever been accused yourself, falsely or otherwise, one quickly > learns that "innocent until proven guilty" is pretty much a televison and > elementary school sham. The majority of the power rests in the established > authority (the government, police, and other "arms of the law"). If that > wasn't so, the accused wouldn't have to PROVE their innocence. <snip>
In it's most technical form, the term "innocent until proven guilty" merely means that the burden of proof is on the state to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt in the case of criminal matters) that an accused is guilty. It means that the state must have sufficient evidence that, if believed, makes out the offence charged. It means that if the state does not have that evidence, the accused need not present any evidence, and can say, "you have not made out your case", and if the trier of fact (ie: judge and jury) agree, he will be found not guilty (note: "not guilty" is not the same as innocent. "not guilty" means the state has not proven the case in court, it does not mean "he didn't do it"). Now, you're right, Tom, insofar as some offences are so heinous, disgusting and revolting that the mere accusation is so damning, that a jury will often convict unless they hear from the accused, who often must provide a pretty damned good defence. But that's not the way it should be, and a judge has an obligation to point that out to a jury in his charge to the jury after the trial, before deliberation. All of this is in contrast with the so-called "Continental system of law", wherein the accused must prove his innocence to the judge. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
