ALTRAV, knowing how much I "respect" you, I now see another side to your omnipotence. You are indeed the Messiah! If not the great one himself then you must be Archy Pell incarnate, banging away with dribble on your 'puter from inside your isolation cell at the Collage of Knowledge, Pentridge!

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

« So how do you do that ? Neither a presumption of guilt nor innocence ? Societies have only those two options - a presumption of innocence, as in our society, or a presumption of guilt, as in China and many other backward legal systems »
.

It’s not quite as simple and straight forward as that, I’m afraid, Joe. Sovereign states such as Australia are precisely that : sovereign. The supreme authority in Australia is our federal constitution, despite whatever international treaties we may have signed and ratified. The same goes for all other sovereign nations.

It is no secret that sovereign nations commit breaches of their international treaty obligations when they consider that it is not in their national interest to respect them – including Australia (on the question of human rights in relation to refugees, for example).

There is no national legislation that implements our obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Also, Australia is the only country in the Western world that does not have a bill of rights at the national level to include protection for the legal right of the presumption of innocence.

A number of inroads have been made in the UK as well in respect of the presumption of innocence.

In sexual offence cases such as rape, where the sexual act has already been proved beyond reasonable doubt, there are a limited number of circumstances where the defendant has an obligation to produce evidence that the complainant consented to the sexual act, or that the defendant reasonably believed that the complainant was consenting.

Crime evolves and justice systems evolve. The presumption of innocence was not designed to guarantee legal immunity to sex offenders.

For the adversarial system of justice to operate fairly when it comes down to a question of “my word against yours”, accuser and accused should be treated on an equal footing. Each case should be judged on its merits, and on its merits alone.

Let justice be done. We must privilege justice – not some moralistic ideology.

.

Paul, my son, don't tell anyone, but you have found me out.
Ti's not I you speak of, but a decoy, merely another of my creations, to obfuscate those who seek me harm.
It is with heavy heart and forlorn that I sit upon my ivory throne, with such burden as to feel the weight of the pain I carry in attempting to mitigate the lackings and futility of my children as they continue to evade me, the "Magnificent" one.
But fear not for I will not falter from my purpose in life, which is to ensure the truth shall forever prevail throughout my children.
At least in this life and on this Earth, er, forum.
Amen.

I'd like to propose & nominate Paul1405 & Mr Opinion for the award for outstanding obliviousness to daily life.

Dear Banjo,

«For the adversarial system of justice to operate fairly when it comes down to a question of “my word against yours”, accuser and accused should be treated on an equal footing.»

Not so if you talk about fairness, because if the accused loses, s/he will suffer extreme agony for years, whereas if the accuser loses, they will just return to the comfort of their home with no consequences at all.

More so, because the accuser suffers no consequences if they cannot prove their case, they can still enlist the help of 10's or 100's of their friends to make similar claims against the one accused who would suffer the most dire consequences even if just one of them wins. It is like betting when one of the parties can roll the dice again and again if they do not like the result - Call this "fair"?

«Sovereign states such as Australia are precisely that : sovereign.»

Which also is anything but fair. They are strong and mighty whereas the ordinary small people who live on the land cannot do anything against those who control their lives.

Anyway, why be adversarial? Don't we have enough wars and conflicts already?

Hi Banjo,

Pretty clearly, a presumption of innocence is a technicality of the justice system, and certainly does not mean some sort of immunity for an accused.

So, in a sense, an accused person is presumed innocent BUT under the imposition of an accusation of an offence, and perhaps in custody - and in turn, the accusers (police, citizen, complainant) have to build a case to prove, to the court (or jury)'s satisfaction, that the accused has committed the offence.

So, I suppose technically, the accusers have the burden of building their case, while the accused technically doesn't have to do anything at all. But of course, he has to defend himself against any charges, so he/she and/or his/her lawyers have to effectively prove his/her innocence by demonstrating that the evidence against the accused is either inadequate or false. So of course, the accused and his/her lawyers have a lot of work to do, incurring much time and costs, even though he/she may actually be innocent.

It's much easier for a 'justice' system which presumes the guilt of a charged person, especially if the accused is in custody and finding it difficult to hire a lawyer or gather counter-evidence. So 99 % of cases in Chinese courts, so I've heard, result in a guilty verdict. This surely speeds up the processing of cases, and at much lower costs overall, but is somewhat unjust from a Western point of view.

And of course, the sale of body parts of executed prisoners is a useful and economic way to recoup much of the costs incurred in such a 'justice' system.

Bugger it, now I'm on the List.

Cheers,

Joe