Question

Opinions (whatever you think about it, no complex stuff required)
How would our legal system be different if an accused person had to prove his/her innocence instead of the government proving guilt?

Basically - how would courts operate differently if the accused was guilty from the start, and had to prove they were innocent?

Answer 1

@Joel_the_boss may help you

Answer 2

It's just an opinion e_e

Answer 3

You are talking about innocence, not guild correct?

Well in the court system accused person is trying to prove there innocence so this question is kind of invalid. :)

Answer 4

guilt*

Answer 5

No, the question is "what if people were guilty from the start? Then how would the legal system be different"?

Answer 6

It's asking how things would change IF people were made to be guilty off the bat, and having to prove their innocence.

Answer 7

Or did you mean something else? I didn't really get what you said.

Answer 8

Well you are guilty until proven innocent, that's why you see people in jail for 5+ years, only to come out after there lives have been ruined, because someone didn't turn themselves in until the guilt finally ate them up and they confessed. Example, idk his name but some guy a few years back did 25 years or something and it turned out he was innocent.

Off the bat? Everyone would most likely be in jail tbh. let me explain...

Answer 9

I googled and got this answer: "The Individual doesn't have all the evidence at his hand, and if he were required to meet every single circumstance in order to secure his innocence, he wouldnt be able to do it, since some things involved in a crime are just unexplainable. The Government could also refute him very easily, if they are on the defense, since they would use all that talent and focuse it on something much easier.
The defendant would also have the burden of proof, which like I said since the government wont give him all the evidence and all the materials required to prove his innocence, would be impossible."

Answer 10

Does it seem applicable? e_e
Also: "Just look at Mexico. The police have all of the power because everyone is automatically guilty under Nepoleonic law. This gives too much power to government and the stronger they are the weeker the individual is. That is why we need lower taxes and less government, not a march toward socialism."

Answer 11

There is a shooting and they find 3 people dead, there 2 eye witnesses, no evidence but them, what do you think is going to happen to the people in todays government they go to court testify and put in a few testimonials and descriptions of what happened.
But with your type of law they would be thrown in jail for suspicion. How would they be able to save themselves? There the only two around to even save each other. They were, one at the crime scene, two unharmed, three they were just there for no reason (walking around the park has no reason). Do you understand?

Answer 12

I only got half if any... e_e
This isn't a law I came up with. It's what the teacher is asking of us, but I feel like I have the wrong ideas, so I posted it here

Answer 13

Guilty from the start? That's against the bill of rights...

Answer 14

Everyone has the right to fair trial.

Answer 15

That's not the point... the teacher wants to know what happens if the person has to prove their INNOCENCE >_>

Answer 16

Of course it's against the Bill of Rights, but a lot of countries have this legal system...

Answer 17

requote: "Just look at Mexico. The police have all of the power because everyone is automatically guilty under *Napoleonic law*. This gives too much power to government and the stronger they are the weeker the individual is. That is why we need lower taxes and less government, not a march toward socialism."

"Imagine if our country was under Napoleonic law" then.

Answer 18

You need to assume that joel, it's a conditional question.

Answer 19

There innocence would usually be based off evidence at the crime scene or information pertaining to the case. So if they were guilty from the start looking for evidence, but there's a conflict there. They would most likely be in jail if there innocence was guilty.

Answer 20

If they are guilty with no evidence but they were the only ones around who would you blame?

Answer 21

Im thinking from a legal point of view. So... :)

Answer 22

OHOOOHHHH.. Your talking about court operations!! How it would function.

Answer 23

*facepalms*
Yeah o_e

Sorry OS glitched and wouldn't load fully for 5 minutes =_=

Answer 24

I don't really know what the question is trying to ask but I assumed that too

Answer 25

Well for one there would be juries. There he ones that determine from there point of view what is right and what is wrong.

Answer 26

wouldn't****

Answer 27

Well... couldn't the jury just be immensely biased from the start? Since they assume the defendant is guilty?

Answer 28

^^ YES! Exactly!

Answer 29

So no unbiased jury, basically. ._.

Answer 30

And as I quoted: people would probably get in jail more because some things about innocence just can't be proved

Answer 31

Yes that's ones. Another would probably be that you had to prove your own innocence so no help from government/county teams. No public defender for those who don't have a lawyer.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Innocent+until+proven+guilty

Answer 32

Actually... there might be a defendant's lawyer... not so sure about that.
I don't think we need specifics though xD

Answer 33

lol ok. :)

And like my example those witnesses were at the wrong place at the wrong time. They would be unable to prove there innocence.

Answer 34

Witnesses?

Answer 35

What do you mean by "[witnesses] unable to prove [their] innocence"?

Answer 36

whiteness :P there

Answer 37

what o_o

Answer 38

I just quoted you using the typical English MLA format. Force of habit xD

Answer 39

lol ok.