2006-10-11 06:01:25 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
imnogenius:
I'm not asking about political parties. I'm just asking in general about people or groups of people accused of wrongdoing.
2006-10-11 06:12:37 · update #1
We sort of have that presumption for one of the three pillars of the criminal offence. Every offence has 3 elements; the physical element (the 'actus reus'), the mental element (the 'mens rea'), and the lack of a viable defence.
The defences depend on what offence has been commited, but the most obvious ones include the private defence (often called self defence), duress, and diminshed responsibility.
Once the prosecution has established the mens rea, and the actus reus, they have established a 'prima facie' offence. To avoid being guilty, the defendant must prove a viable defence. As you can see, at this point the burden of proof switches to the defendant and they are, in one sense, presumed guilty.
However, on the theoretical side, the answer must surely be no. This would allow the Crown to launch many unfounded prosecutions, and succeed in them merely because you were at home alone! Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, as incorporated into English law through the Human Rights Act 1998, states that every has the right to a fair trial including the right to be presumed innocent.
Hope this helps.
2006-10-11 06:13:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The French, for one, have a presumtion of guilt legal system, where the burden of proof is on the accused.
But in the US (as in many other places), no, people are (supposed to be) presumed innocent until proven guilty; the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
That's in theory. The government takes people's properties on suspiscion of drug crime, without proof; and, of course anyone the military arbitrarily rounds up is treated as guilty.
Why do you ask?
2006-10-11 08:50:16 · answer #2 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course not. How can you prove that you DIDN'T prove something? If I ask you to prove the POSITIVE it is quite easy. "Have you been to Disneyland?" You respond, "Yes I have." I say allright, prove it. Well you produce photographs taken at different times at different stages of your life inside Disneyland. You answer questions about the park that only someone that has been there would know. You produce friends, family, or associates who accompanied you there and in whose pictures you also appear. There you go. You've proved the POSITIVE.
But what if I ask you if you've ever been to Walt Disney World, in Orlando, Florida and you say, "No." And then I say, "Oh yeah? Prove it?" How in the hell do you prove that you HAVEN'T been to Walt Disney World. Do you produce a photograph of Walt Disney World that DOESN'T have you in it and offer it as evidence? All that would prove is that you weren't in the picture. Possibly you were TAKING that very photo. Do you produce a picture of you standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon to prove you've never been to Walt Disney World. Is that enough proof?
Of course you can see the logical impossibility of proving the NEGATIVE of something. When you challenge someone to prove that they DIDN'T do something, you are basically asking them to prove the NEGATIVE. And such a challenge of course is impossible, (in most cases.)
2006-10-11 06:09:01 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Curious 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is dependent on the situation. In NYC, for example, in quasi-judicial proceedings (think Cop who is in an administrative trial to see if he is fit for duty, after being caught with a hooker). Even better example would be a Workers Compensation or Department of Labor "trial". Many Civil Cases, where the burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, instead of reasonable doubt............like I said, many different situations could apply, especially Military Tribunals and such.
2006-10-11 06:12:32 · answer #4 · answered by irish_american_psycho 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not all countries in the world assume that a defendant is innocent. Many assume the defendant is guilty.
2006-10-11 06:05:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't understand your question. Political parties are not protected by the Bill of Rights. American citizens and corporations have rights defined by the U.S. Constitution. But, not political parties.
Sorry. I'd say no.
It seems like you'd be trying to prove a negative. I can't think of specific cases when it would be appropriate.
2006-10-11 06:04:59 · answer #6 · answered by imnogeniusbutt 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Very true. Which is why the USA got it right, with innocent until proven guilty :)
2006-10-11 06:09:00 · answer #7 · answered by C-Man 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In my humble view....No.
2006-10-11 06:04:18 · answer #8 · answered by I Am He As U R He As U R Me 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋