Innocent Vs Guilty

[river]

This is in light of a personal experience -

At present, the law in the UK stands that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty.

I have never been able to understand this, as if the police have enough evidence to put a case forward to the CPS and then bring it to court where on Earth is the presumption of innocence there?

I know in some cases the burden of proof reverses but still innocent until proven guilty...wheres the justice for the victim?

Also the suspects history/past record cannot be revealed in court so if you are ever on a jury if one of the first questions is not along the line of

'So Mr/Mrs are you of good character?'

They more than likely they have a history.

Shouldn't the law stand that once a case gets so far the suspect is guilty until proven innocent?

[river]

Sorry maybe I should have said England

[Octavius]

The presumption of innocence/guilt is based upon the deliberation of 12 peers based on the evidence presented. The �accused� is innocent until these people, the jury, agree beyond a shadow of doubt that the evidence presented by the CPS/police proves the guilt. Just because an accused person is brought before the court, it does not assume they are guilty, until the evidence is presented and judged. Perhaps it is your perception that if someone is in court that the CPS evidence stacks up so much that they must be guilty of the charges � but this is not entirely true.

It is the police and CPS who believes strongly enough that the accused is guilty in order to bring the case to court and prove it in law.

[RATTER15]

You sound very bitter and angry!!

I think that innocent until proven guilty has to be the way!! The police and associated professions are masters in finding the proof required to prove guilt.

How is an innocent person going to prove his/her innocence and if he/she is innocent why should he have to, we cant all afford to hire legal teams to fight these cases like the law can to prove our innocence.

Sounds ridiculous to me!!

[legend758duo]

not proven has caused much controversy over the years in scotland .
leading to soem families taking accused to court and getting them found guilty ina civil court.

like the oj simpson case in the usa .
where the families took him to court and got him fined

[MrsT]

I speak from personal experience, I was acquitted in a trial for something I did not do, on the say so of one person I was arrested and processed. I know I was innocent and I spent the best part of a year going through the mill. The Police had no case, just some very iffy hearsay. The CPS proceeded with the prosecution regardless. You see I was committing the worst possible crime, I'm a white middle class man. The accuser was an asian man. I was found not guilty very quickly, the magistarates berated the Police and the prosecution for bringing the case. All I had to do was tell the truth, I had faith in justice at the time and it was delivered. Belive me the Police and CPS are the last people to determine guilt. What we have is far from perfect but it's the best system ever devised.