Presumption of Innocence, or Presumption of Guilt?
 

This is possibly quite a tricky question as both have their good and bad points, but which court system do you think is best? "Innocent until proven guilty", or "Guilty until proven innocent"? Which one is more likely to make sure that the right people are being sentenced and the people aren't being falsely accused?

innocent until proven guilty

Innocent until proven guilty.

i rather like the Scottish system although I live in England. Innocent until proven guilty but with a not proven verdict too.

It should be,for me anyway, innocent until proven guilty, sadly the media distort things so badly and more and more the real emphasis is on getting cleared before life gets back to some normality,rather than normality continuing until guilt is proven after trial and in court.

Innocent until proven guilty hands down.

We had guilty until proven innocent a long time ago but it's hard to get your life back on track when you're floating down a river dead.

Do you float or not ... what a great system, innocent if you drown :laugh:

:laugh:
Always reminds me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail with the witch thing and John Cleese shouts "she turned me into a newt" then everybody goes silent and looks at him and he shrugs "well I got better"

Innocent until proven guilty absolutely. If it were Innocent beyond reasonable doubt there would be a lot of people wrongly going down for crimes they didn't commit

Just to reiterate what everyone else has said, innocent until proven guilty. Fairest way.

Innocent until proven guilty. Too bad Europe has it backwards. The government should have to prove its case.

How about 'undecided until proven either way'?

No.

Innocent until proven guilty. Also names should be witheld until a guilty verdict is brought in, especially in rape cases. It happens quite a lot that some men are accused of rape by a vindictive person and even if it's proved to be a false allegation, it can still ruin that man's life.

..it should always be innocent until proven guilty..and I agree with others about names being withheld and trials by media...

They do?

Errrr in terms of the law, always innocent until proven guilty. In terms of personal opinion, use common sense and make up your own mind.

Innocent until proven guilty with no names of any accused made public until actually proven guilty.

Couldn't agree more.... Anonymity must be available for any accused person until they are actually convicted.

Publicly naming people before they have been convicted in the hope that more people will say oh yes that person abused me also 35 years ago just makes a mockery of justice.

Evidence must be gathered whilst keeping the accused persons name out of the public domain, otherwise it's just innocent until the newspapers decide you are guilty regardless of any trial, evidence etc....

This is not a tricky question... it is a strange question though, for someone who claims to be a lawyer to ask. And how exactly does either example stop people being falsely accused?

Innocent until proven guilty, obviously. With anonymity for all parties until sentencing. As Kirklancaster said.

It's unfair to the victims, and i really feel awful for victims who don't get justice, because of course the system of innocent until proven guilty means that most times victims get no justice..

that being said though, i can't think of any greater psychological torture than being put in jail for a crime you didn't commit.

It's very difficult. i can see both sides.

No, they don't. The burden is put on the defendant.

IT doesn't happen "quite a lot," and there's little in the way of keeping a lid on such information from the press. Only in instances where a minor is involved should a person's name be withheld.

Not the case in Ireland
B)
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
The presumption of innocence is not explicitly stated in the Constitution but it is
implicit in the requirement of Article 31.1 that “no person shall be tried on any criminal
charge save in due course of law”. The concept of
presumption of innocence is
fundamental to the Irish legal system and is intern
ationally recognised as an essential
safeguard. It is the cornerstone of the criminal justice system. An accused person is
presumed innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proving this guilt is on the
prosecution and it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt

https://www.ibat.ie/downloads/Sample...a%20McAlee.pdf

I have to put you right on this... It is for the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty. The defendant does hot have to prove his innocence.