2007-10-13 04:22:12 · 6 answers · asked by Anastasia A 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
"Beyond a reasonable doubt." I think of that as about 99%. EDIT: I'm sorry I misunderstood. The answer is partly historical. When the U.S. was a British colony, the English has a court system that included the "star chamber". In that proceeding, the King could institute secret proceedings and convict a person without his/her knowledge and impose a punishment without an opportunity to defend. The U.S. system began as a reaction to that system and was also based upon the Natural Rights doctrine followed by our Founding Fathers which was based upon the philosophies of persons like John Locke and Rousseau.
To impose the burden of proof on the defendant is unworkable. First, it's hard to prove a negative. Second, the defendant can't even try to prove innocence until he/she knows all the facts against him/her. Therefore, making the prosecution go first is simply logical. Finally, we really have to believe in the wisdom of the words of Chief Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes on this issue: "It's better for a hundred guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted." (paraphrasing). It's our most important elemental freedom, but was based on the historic developments of 1776.
2007-10-13 04:25:30 · answer #1 · answered by David M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the prosecutor is the one bringing the charges, imagine if it was up to the defense to prove that they didn't do it.
Prosecutors could charge anyone with a crime and leave it up to that person to prove he didn't do it.
This is why a prosecutor has to prove that the person they are charging did commit the crime, the defendant is presumed to be innocent.
The basic idea is that it is better to let a guilty person go than it is to jail an innocent one, this does not work all the time .
2007-10-13 04:55:18 · answer #2 · answered by justgetitright 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The basic idea (to add to what some of the others have already said) is that we're all supposed to be free to do what we like, unless there's some reason not to allow this.
So, if we want to deprive someone of their liberty, we need to show that there's good reason to do so: they did something wrong and need to be stopped.
Therefore, it's up to those who say you did the bad thing to show it; you then have a chance to show either it wasn't bad or that you didn't do it.
Actually, if the presecution fails to make their case, the trial is over at that point, without the defense being necessary. (If you watch Law & Order, you'll see the defense often trying this concept, usually without success, when they claim the prosecution didn't make their case and it should be thrown out of court.)
Usually the prosecution won't go to court until they're pretty sure they have a good case.
(I believe the French legal system is the opposite, and has a presumption of guilt, rather than a presumption of innocence that we have; I've long been curious as to how that works out, exactly.)
Anyway, it's a fundamental principle of our law. Well, it used to be....
2007-10-13 08:34:03 · answer #3 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because our justice system is built around the idea of people being innocent until proven guilty. The prosecutor's side must prove that the accused is guilty.
2007-10-13 04:25:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Cause your innocent until proven guilty.
2007-10-13 04:31:49 · answer #5 · answered by Boots 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
In the US, at least.
2007-10-13 04:25:08 · answer #6 · answered by DAR 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋