4 ms·
You did have to provide proof! you were assumed guilty until you proved yourself innocent by using the evidence that the state themselves already had, but didn’
by garbagewoman 2y ago
You did have to provide proof! you were assumed guilty until you proved yourself innocent by using the evidence that the state themselves already had, but didn’t present as proof of the infringement.
- janalsncm 2y agoIn this case the assumption is that the camera evidence is accurate and conclusive. If it was a blurry picture, I don’t think they would be asked to provide additional evidence to prove they weren’t guilty, the ticket would simply be thrown out. In other words, the burden of proof is still on the government to provide sufficient evidence. If they won’t or can’t, there is no case.
- garbagewoman 2y agoThe person I replied to was required to challenge the assumption that they were guilty, and the camera evidence exonerated them every time, so by your standards should have been thrown out. The “burden” was on them to “prove” themselves innocent, its literally in the name. Just because the state possessed the evidence to prove his case doesn’t mean the burden was on them
- lolinder 2y agoExactly. Forcing someone to challenge a fine that they've already been issued is not presumed innocence, it's presumed guilt. If someone fails to act affirmatively to challenge the fine for any reason (work commitments, disability, death in the family, the list goes on) then they're on the hook for the charge in spite of the fact that the state knowingly used an inaccurate system to issue the fine.