FindArena > Find Arena > Law

Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 ()
arcadiorm : The saying "Everyone is innocent untill proven guilty" many people like lawyers refer too. But why cant it be the other way around like "Everyone is guilty until proven innocent?"

  Reply With Quote
  #2 ()
Jamesgo : Because some countries tried the other way, it meant you spent long years in jail unless you could prove yourself innocent.

One way puts the obligation to prove the case on the accuser, the other on the accused.
  Reply With Quote
  #3 ()
Rhimibymn : Because the presumption of innocence makes more sense in a justice system. When the concept was created, people were being thrown in jail with no trial because they were assumed to be guilty. Just like we have done in Guantanamo. .

In Europe it's the other way around and when you go to trial, you have to prove you are innocent rather than the government having to prove you are guilty. Quite a burden, especially difficult to prove you did not do something than someone else proving your did.

Then you add in your addendum of "everyone" and you get to the point where you have to put everyone in jail because everyone is guilty of everything.
  Reply With Quote
  #4 ()
moment7q : I think you stole my computer. And I want you to go to jail for stealing my computer. Now, prove that you didn't steal my computer. The fact that you don't have it doesn't prove anything. You might have sold it, or hidden it somewhere.

Or my ex-wife might accuse me of a crime, just to be mean. And seriously, if she could, she would.
  Reply With Quote
  #5 ()
Alexander_john : Libraryanna's answer is a good one, except the bit about Europe. The Code Napoleon does seem to say that, but there are a number of safeguards which, as a retired lawyer, she should be aware of. Should also be aware that most European countries - UK, Germany, Scandinavia, many others - don't still use that code (or never did) and also operate "innocent until proved to be guilty" for the reasons she gave.

Indeed America imported that concept from Europe - well, the UK - in the first place.
  Reply With Quote
  #6 ()
2timo : We have that in the Child Protective Services Agencies, and look how THAT is working out.
  Reply With Quote
  #7 ()
Cetuneld : that if someone can pass the State Bar exam then they can be a lawyer. Without going to law school. Does anyone know if this is true?
  Reply With Quote
  #8 ()
daunkwoorousa : Most states will not let you take the bar exam without going to a certified law school.
That is why you don't see a lot of "mail order" lawyers.
  Reply With Quote
  #9 ()
Jeniferxfs, : A corporation recently hired me & sent me to training, with a trainer who made inappropriate advances towards me. From the moment I had to ride with him to begin learning about my new company, he began asking me all sorts personal questions, from how old I was to even digging into how many years I had been married (however many husbands)! It was very intrusive. Also, I was obligated to go shopping with him after training hours because I was riding with him (which cut into my time learning my presentation). I also have on store video-tape him asking me to try on a necklace to see how it would fit his wife! If all this wasn't bad enough, he drove like a maniac & daredevil; breaking traffic laws speeding & running red lights (even though I kept telling him he was scaring me). The company let me go because I could not learn my presentation in time. Now I am jobless, because I had quit my previous job to go work with this new company. What are the chances, if I talked to someone high up in the corporation, they might settle & give me a check out of court? I am thinking no company would like the embarassment of having to lose a sexual harassment case in court.
  Reply With Quote
  #10 ()
wattplailky : Somewhere between zero and none.

The company fired you for incompetence. If you were to try to claim sex harassment now, it would look like pure retaliation. If you try to speak to someone higher up in the corporation, they will sic a whole slew of corporate lawyers on you.
  Reply With Quote