Are you sure? Sounds like how it used to be, you know, before people were taken off the streets by masked men.
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.
Professorozone@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 11 hours 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.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 11 hours 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.
theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 10 hours 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.
KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 10 hours 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.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 hours ago
That’s how it’s supposed to work but rarely actually does.