3 ms·

How about you prove your haven't stolen my Mazda? Because I believe you did stole my Mazda and it should be on you to prove innocence.

• matheusmoreira 6y ago
  People are all equal and should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, there is a massive power difference between a rich corporation and an individual. Inverting the burden of proof is warranted in such cases. Your accusation would be very troublesome if made against individuals but for corporate lawyers its just another day at the office.
  • Nasrudith 6y ago
    Okay then how do you prove the government hasn't stolen my Mazda? They are even more powerful than corporations. Inverting the burden of proof is listed as a logical fallacy for a reason. It is never appropriate.
    • matheusmoreira 6y ago
      Not only is it appropriate, there are already cases where this is done. Wikipedia documents some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_onus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_onus
      • Nasrudith 6y ago
        There are only three countries listed there - Pakistan, Canada and the UK. That is a bit of an indication that it is a major fringe excepetions. The UK's libel laws are so infamous that many nations specifically refuse to enforce them - not a point in favor. Canada has largely scoured out the bits they inherited by thr courts and what is left is dubiously constitutional. The income accounting in the UK and Pakistan are the closest thing to legitimate and even then self evidently regarded as extreme by their limited adoption.