< Innocent until proven guilty is a very noble principle which sustains our modern concept of justice >

NO IT DOESN’T!!

You’d be closer to the truth if you pointed at the sky on a lovely clear sunny day and asserted that it was red!

‘Innocent until proven guilty’ or even ‘innocent until shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt’ are just convenient words which might apply sometimes, but often just completely don’t!

I’ve totally had this tested out with the police and courts. Regarding a relatively minor traffic matter. I went to the police to report a piece of extremely bizarre and dangerous driving. But the offender was clearly someone that the police officer knew and was going to protect at all costs. He fabricated charges against me. The magistrate upheld them even though she had absolutely no grounds to do so. I couldn’t prove my innocence! On that occasion I had done utterly nothing wrong and indeed I did exactly the right thing – I kept my cool completely when submitted to an absolutely crazy maniac on the road.

The same sort of thing can so easily happen with alleged sex offenders. We need to be VERY careful about whether someone is in the wrong, and to what extent, and with what mitigating circumstances.

It is all too easy for people to be wrongly accused or for a case against them to be beaten right up out of all proportion.

Sorry Rodney, but I think your article is entirely misfocussed on the notion of the presumption of innocence.

Sure, the whole legal system could do with some fundamental improvements. Let’s start by making the presumption-of-innocence and the need for guilt-not-to-be-declared-until-it-has-been-shown-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt actually apply…. instead of just being weasel words!!

I think we should change our system to a bit more more like the French. If you are charged you are brought before an examining Magistrate who will question you. Refusal to answer or a "no comment" will mean no lawyer can represent you whilst you take that stand.
Then you are presented as guilty unless you can prove your innocence.
It does seem a bit harsh but then you couple that with mandated charges for Lawyers of so many days for a particular charge. It would result in a massive reduction in legal fees and free up the courts instantly.
Do not talk to me about better ten guilty men go free than an innocent man goes to prison! Any system that let's ten guilty men go free is guaranteed to jail an innocent man!

The only alternative to innocent until proven guilty is tyranny.
The road to hell is paved with the good intentions of fools

The system is heavily weighted at the moment in favour of one party.

Lawyers.

Our adversarial system of "justice" depends most heavily on the quality of the lawyers that you hire to defend yourself. Indeed, even if you find a talented lawyer from Outer Woop Woop to present your case, you might find yourself against a, say, Stuart Littlemore, whose celebrity status alone will undoubtedly sway a jury against you.

(In passing: definition of a jury - twelve people without the intelligence to get themselves out of jury duty)

The sheer cost of protecting yourself has risen to unconscionable levels. And ultimately in this environment, the concept of "truth" becomes subservient to expediency. Being taken to court on a frivolous (business related) issue by a serial litigator ran up a bill well into six figures before it was withdrawn. Fortunately, the business was insured, so the only losers were the insurance companies, and the only winners were the lawyers.

But there is one other angle that affects the onus of proof in sex crimes, and that is the actions of the media.

How many people, I wonder, already believe that Rolf Harris is guilty of indecent assault, even though his case will not even come to court until April next year?

It's not fair!

There I've said everything this piece said, & did not take up 3 pages doing it.

Come on Rodney, you have to come up with viable suggestions, if you want to be taken seriously.

I agree with Hasbeen - it is not fair!

Being in jail is such a horrible thing that I would release all prisoners if that means that I can save one innocent soul from that terrible experience. That one miserable soul could be anyone, including you or me.

Now if I release people with a reasonable chance of re-offending, I would not do it stupidly, but exile them instead to a distant land where they can do no harm, or in the case of sex offenders, as I rather have my genitals removed than being imprisoned, I would allow them that same alternative.

Seriously, the anxiety of innocent people who may be sent to jail in error is not worth the 'pleasure' of punishing.

I find the author's idea of "the victim's right for justice" disgusting. While taking measures to prevent further damage is understandable, it is sick to consciously want to see another suffering - yet the system encourages it.

On another note, I do not agree with the author that sexual offences uniquely create 'severe psychic trauma' and 'an internal wound which never completely heals' more than other types of crimes. This is an insult to victims of other crimes, including other forms of physical assault. The claim on 'violation of the person's integrity and identity as a unique individual' is also total unsubstantiated nonsense. Being a victim is no excuse for losing one's integrity and how possibly can one's identity as a unique individual be affected by physical interference, bad as it may be.