In addition to what Doug Laycock said, the statute would also be unconstitutional here because it presumes guilt and puts the burden on the accused to prove his or her innocence. Here, the government always has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the facts that show a crime has been committed by the accused. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). (Is it actually the case that in Ireland a person can be convicted of a crime simply by being accused and standing silent, with no facts put into evidence by the prosecutor?)
In a message dated 8/4/09 8:31:37 PM, maireadenri...@gmail.com writes: > In any proceedings it will be presumed, unless proved to the contrary, > that an offence has been committed. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
