You're wrong Jon, the defense does not try to prove innocence. The defense simply tries to cast doubt on the evidence. Thats why someone is found not guilty rather than innocent.
You're wrong Jon, the defense does not try to prove innocence. The defense simply tries to cast doubt on the evidence. Thats why someone is found not guilty rather than innocent.
Tired...
The purpose of the "defense" is to defend their client. Their client being the individual charged for the crime. In order to defend their client, they either have to prove reasonable doubt (what you spoke of), or prove innocence by introducing that which proves innocence (a confession from the real murderer, etc...).Originally Posted by somebigguy
Either way, my point is valid.
um ... I thought everyone was innocent until proven guilty.
If I understand our legal system (which I may not), I thought the burdeon of proof was on the prosecution ... meaning they must prove a person to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Tired...
They are... but a "suspect" is a "suspect" for a reason... because there's a chance they may be "guilty"...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote