Report comment

Very interesting post.

The strangest thing is that in some areas of law the burden of proof is entirely ignored.

Take cases of rape or sexual abuse, for example. Even if the case is historical and decades old, where the ONLY "evidence" is a statement from the claimant, it is shocking that any kind of prosecution can be brought.

And yet they are. No other witness; no physical evidence; nothing substantiated or corroborated by anyone or anything - but the "automatic presumption of guilt." And the burden of proof lands square on the shoulders of the accused who cannot, of course, PROVE their innocence. So they are found guilty.

I know of real cases when men have been convicted even though the allegation was physically impossible.

I know of real cases when a judge has said to a YOUTH who spent 18 months on pre-charge bail, that they did not really believe the accuser...but "guilty on all 3 counts".

There is no burden of proof with these cases, unless you are the innocent person.