Topsy the Elephant

DamnYankee said:
It's not up to me to prove your point.

Perhaps that's the way the law works in the UK, "guilty until proven innocent", but here in the US, we have established the exact opposite law. Perhaps to spite you. :)
Click to expand...

Oh I see, those genteel citizens were presuming innocence even whilst stringing those poor bastards up. :palm:

Regarding the UK, as in so many things the presumption of innocence was taken from English Common Law which your forbears had the good sense to copy. Under English common law there is a presumption of innocence with the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, only on the basis of admissible evidence. The accused has a right to a trial by jury with legal representation. The underlying principle of the English system of law is equality for all. This is essential to protect the innocent from unjust convictions.

May I remind you that miscegenation was a crime in many Southern states until Loving v Virginia in 1967. It also took the case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) to force states to provide legal counsel to all defendants. So you ought to be much more circumspect when bragging about how superior the US legal system is, not that you will of course.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
Oh I see, those genteel citizens were presuming innocence even whilst stringing those poor bastards up. :palm:

Regarding the UK, as in so many things the presumption of innocence was taken from English Common Law which your forbears had the good sense to copy. Under English common law there is a presumption of innocence with the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, only on the basis of admissible evidence. The accused has a right to a trial by jury with legal representation. The underlying principle of the English system of law is equality for all. This is essential to protect the innocent from unjust convictions.
Click to expand...

When did things changed? Or have they? I can see that the presumption of innocence is lost on you. :D

"When it is said that a defendant to a criminal charge is presumed to be innocent, what is really meant is that the burden of proving his guilt is upon the prosecution. This golden thread ... runs through the web of the English criminal law. Unhappily Parliament regards the principle with indifference - one might almost say with contempt. The statute book contains many offences in which the burden of proving his innocence is cast on the accused." (Glanville Williams, The Proof of Guilt: A Study of the English Criminal Trial (1955))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top