Comment

theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

Wrong, that’s the opposite of how reasonable doubt works. It is the prosecutor’s job to prove beyond doubt that the defendent is guilty of the charges. The defendent does not need to prove they are innocent.

source

Sort:hotnew top

SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
That’s how it’s supposed to work but rarely actually does.

source
Professorozone@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Are you sure? Sounds like how it used to be, you know, before people were taken off the streets by masked men.

source
- theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  The commenter is still completely wrong,then. In that case there is no due process and you’re just guilty because people with guns say so.
  
  source
  - Professorozone@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Yeah, exactly.
    
    source
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
It’s like saying you couldn’t have committed a crime because your TV was on at the time; it seems too flimsy to even be usable if you didn’t have some other form of evidence supporting that it was actually you using it to go along with it. I’m not a lawyer, so it’s possible I’m totally wrong, but surely no competent lawyer would expect that to work and no judge would take that as evidence on its own merits.

source
- theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  
  it seems too flimsy
  
  Okay, then the cops will have no problem proving you were elsewhere at the time, if its a lie. Until they’ve proved it and convinced a jury of that, you’re 100% innocent.
  
  source
  - KoboldCoterie@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    The question wasn’t, “Could this be used as evidence?”, it was “Would this exonerate you?”
    
    Maybe we’re answering two different questions, but I don’t see this being enough to exonerate anyone without some supporting evidence to go with it.
    
    source