: Hi DDN;
: the way I read this, it's a comparisson between the U.S. and U.K. systems (or perhaps the U.K. system has changed?). In the US, you're presumed innocent, and the burden of proof consequently rests on the prosecution. the same has always been so here- innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt- of late some laws the otehrway round ahve been passed- the crime of carrying an offensive weapon- if you are cuaght with an 'offensive weapon' its up to you to prove that you weren't carrying it as such (i.e. the ammer was for hammering, etc.). but thats a marginal area ...
: I suspect that was a typo. However, it raises an important distinction. In the US system, the accused is never declared "innocent," only "not guilty."
but they are innocent until proven guilty. The distinction is made best in Scotland, where there are three porrible verdicts- Guilty, Not Guilty, and the venemous and unjust 'Not proven', if found not guilty you are innocent, if found not proven, well, they just dunno...
: The alternate system (assume guilt until innocence is proved) can lead to demonstration of innocence through falsification of the null hypothesis of guilt (e.g. the Guilford four).
The guilford four were conviced by dodgey forensics...
: I suspect this difference is related to the differences in philosophy between the Puritain founders of the US and the monarchists in the UK.
AFAIK they transported the Jury system and the judicial system in toto from the UK... except we scrapped Grand Juries in the nineteenth century as unjust...(bet Clinton would've liked that).
