Innocent Until Proven Guilty

[*crikey*mate*]

In your opinion, should this presumption be reversed in Australia?

If not universally, are there some instances where this may be beneficial or desirable?

[rabbitearbandicoot]

make that colour in her cheeks ....

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@am*3 wrote:

I don't see any reason why it should be revoked/reversed in Australia.

There would be no need for judges/barristers/court cases would there if every person charged by the police was presumed to be guilty?  Maybe a judge, the guilty one could go to court and the judge would tell them what their sentence is.

---

????????

Innocent until PROVEN guilty... or guilty until PROVEN innocent.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

Would it be rude of me to ask how the OH is doing?

---

No, certainly not, and thank you for asking. She is still in hospital - in Repatriation - learning how to walk again, getting in and out of bed, transferring from bed to wheel-chair etc etc. It's a slow old process but she is getting there. She has started to worry about grooming, haircuts, jewellery etc so that is a good indication and she is also looking much better - cooler in her cheeks. They are talking about sending her home for a day, for a trial run. They are also working on her speech ??? WHy, I don't know - so she tear strips off me more eloquently - lol.

---

that is so good to hear that she is on the mend, and good to see that you still have a sense of humour - you made me laugh a bit.

So how long until you get her home for the day? That's sure a step in the right direction.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Scottish. law has the option of a third  verdict:  not proven. In essence it means ' we're pretty sure you dunnit, but the evidence is not quite strong enough to convict you.'

[cherry*135]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:

I don't see any reason why it should be revoked/reversed in Australia.

There would be no need for judges/barristers/court cases would there if every person charged by the police was presumed to be guilty?  Maybe a judge, the guilty one could go to court and the judge would tell them what their sentence is.

---

????????

Innocent until PROVEN guilty... or guilty until PROVEN innocent

---

Still NO then. Why would you think that would be an option?

[the_hawk*]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

---

????????

Innocent until PROVEN guilty... or guilty until PROVEN innocent.

How do you prove you didnt do something

---

[izabsmiling]

No not reversed .

As it is suspension from certain positions once charged until a the matter is decided in a legal manner and depending on the outcome.

Does holding people in custody/giving bail conditions 'pre-court hearing' in a way lean towards guilt ?

[izabsmiling]

or rather a suspicion of guilt ...on the part of and by those who set those conditions.

[monman12]

"Innocent Until Proven Guilty"

Actually the term is presumption of innocence, and it makes for an interesting debate when you equate that with another legal term :strict liability.

Example of strict  liability

a pharmacist supplied drugs to a patient who presented a forged doctor's prescription, but was convicted even though the House of Lords accepted that the pharmacist was blameless.

A strict liability offences allow for the imposition of criminal liability without the need to prove fault, strict liability offences directly engage and limit the presumption of innocence

nɥºɾ

[silverfaun]

Definitely not. This is a basic right of all people. Roxon tried to reverse the onus of proof & where is she & her bill now? ..Gone to oblivion where anything like this deserves to go.