3 ms·
It's the prosecutions job to prove that that is not a reasonable doubt. At trial. A trial that cannot happen unless assange is extradited. For that reason the b
by joshuamorton 6y ago
It's the prosecutions job to prove that that is not a reasonable doubt. At trial. A trial that cannot happen unless assange is extradited. For that reason the burden of proof for extradition is lower.
Edit: I originally mispoke and had this backwards, but it doesn't actually affect the point.
- nobody9999 6y ago>It's the defenses job to prove that that is a reasonable doubt. At trial. A trial that cannot happen unless assange is extradited. For that reason the burden of proof for extradition is lower. No. At least in the US, it's the prosecution's responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. The defense needn't prove anything. Although, it's often a good idea to find some evidence that exonerates the defendant. Here's a little primer[0] for you. [0] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/defense/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resource...
- joshuamorton 6y agoYou're correct, I misspoke. It doesn't affect my point though, that the prosecution can bring a case without first having won the case. I've corrected the initial comment.
- nobody9999 6y ago>It doesn't affect my point though, that the prosecution can bring a case without first having won the case. Huh? How would a prosecutor get to try (and attempt to prove) a case if they don't bring the case to the court in the first place? Perhaps I'm missing something here?
- joshuamorton 6y agoExactly. They can bring a case before having proven it beyond a reasonable doubt.