2 ms·
IIUC in US constitutional terms the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is actually "innocent until something (eg a trial) pronounces you guilty". The di
by afiori 3y ago
IIUC in US constitutional terms the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is actually "innocent until something (eg a trial) pronounces you guilty".
The difference being that who needs to prove what can be quite flexible.
- masklinn 3y agoGuilt in criminal contexts is assessed under the "reasonable doubt" standard of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt). In civil contexts however, the legal standard is the much lower "preponderance of evidence" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Preponderance_of_the_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Preponde...).
- afiori 3y agoI agree, my intent was not to say that there are no standard at all, but rather that the constitutional phrasing leaves a lot latitude. For example congress could legislate that some specific crimes should use "preponderance of evidence" rather than "resonable doubt" or even require that the defendants prove their own innocence beyond resonable doubt. In the case of civil forfeiture I suspect that the individual whose property was seized has a constitutional right to appeal in some way, but also the constitution has little to say about the rules of that appeal process.