Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
On 7 Sep 99, Frank Conley wrote, at least in part:
> In fact, this idea works *in favor* of the accused because if it
> were a true "presumption" the accused would have to come forward
> with proof of his innocence once evidence of guilt were
> introduced in order to avoid a directed verdict of guilty. As
> it is, the accused does not have to provide proof of his
> innocence.
Quite the opposite definition of presumption in my eyes.
Presumption means that is it assumed and presumed and the view
that is in opposition must be proved, just like it seems to work a
good deal of the time.
Boy, this is the stuff that grates on the lay public. Most would
agree that, if adjudicated 'not guilty' of the charges, then, dammit,
the defendant is innocent! What you seem to be saying is that,
once charged, you will forever have your innocence open to
question, even when the judge or jury says 'not guilty'! If that's
the way it is, it stinks! I'm sure that my simplistic point of view is
laughed at by the barristers, but as far as I'm concerned, they
have made the law so convoluted that it is easy to corrupt, and
get away with the corruption by virtue of our 'dumbed down'
public.
The complication and convolution of the law is understandable,
however. A nation, such as the U.S., that has orders of magnitude
more attorneys than any other is sure to continue the
complication. It's an annuity for the profession.
Yes, back to Leica!
- --
Roger
mailto:roger@beamon.org
Keep quiet, you're always interrupting
me in the middle of my mistakes.
-- Michael Curtiz, film director