The Presumption of Innocence.

[derekpara]

I have an open mind on the question I am about to ask, and would plead for a reasoned debate.

In view of the threat to the people of this country from extremist terrorists, should those charged by the State have to prove their innocence rather than the other way around ?

Do drastic situations demand drastic measures like this ?

Sorry, two questions.

[jake-the-peg]

Dolly, were not talking about "punishment" here but rather the trial process.

Whether you can pick somebody up off of the street and say "prove your innocent or you're going to jail"

or in your suggestion

"Prove you're innocent or we'll hang you"

[kwicky]

I don't understand it. Why is the UK the only western country to be target by these Islamic extremists? The USA plays a bigger part in the Iraq war than we do.

[good-arras]

What happened to the suggestion of burying the remains of Muslim suicide bombers wrapped in pigskin?

The more deterrents that can be introduced the less risk there is and therefore less need for the kind of situation that derekpara depicts

[THECORBYLOON]

In 1974, IRA/Sinn Fein planted three bombs in Birmingham murdering 21. Following a trial, six men were sentenced to Life but under some of the suggestions posted here, they would have hanged. The only slight problem is that due to the police tampering wi the evidence, the verdict was overturnt after 16 years.

Do yous still favour hanging and "guilty til proven innocent?"

[Joe_the_Lion]

The Birmingham 6, The Guilford 4 and The Renault 5 were as guilty as (to quote Blackadder) a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.

They got off because (re: released) due to evidence, as you say, of police tamperring. It was a mistake of the police, there was actually enough evidence to convict them anyway. The authorities just wanted it to stick as, this time, the IRA were fairly good at coverring their tracks.

Hanging terrorist scum, whether muslim or IRA is not only a good thing, but cathartic and necessary for a civilised society.

May terrorist scum, particularly those with beards and no moustaches rot in hell with no pornography or Jaffa Cakes.

[Marvelman]

pippa 68, if they are British that makes them even worse scum , how about giving them the same punishment they would get in their spiritual country Iran for the same crime, their heads cut off,

[Ctrak]

Erm...I don't think that pornography and Jaffa Cakes are what Islamic terrorists fight for....

[derekpara]

A great debate, folks. Thanks for your input so far.
Now, if Guilty Until Proven Innocent is too rich for some of you, what about ' Guilty (or innocent) on the Balance of Probabilty '? As an ex soldier, if someone in a hostile situation pointed a weapon at me I considered that on the balance of probability he/she was going to shoot me, so I felt justified in shooting first .
Now, if someone straps an explosive to his body and attempts to set it off on a train, then on the B of P I think he is guilty of an act of terrorism. But under our present system, some smart Alec Barrister could argue that the poor chap was on his way to a minorities fireworks display .
All you have to do today is to sow one seed of doubt and the person is innocent under our present system. A great many people get away scot free on a technicality and I would rather see one innocent person sent to jail that ten guilty ones released. It's the price we may have to pay.

[Pippa68]

Marvelman ~ that wouldn't be right as they are British, and should be tried and punished under our own laws.

I am English, but have the bloodline of several nationalities. It would be like me being sent to France or Holland to be punished for a crime.

[Oneeyedvic]

despite being a 'bleeding heart liberal' there are certain times and certain crimes where I would condone 'on the balance of probabilities', but under no circumstances should anyone be put to death on that basis.