4 ms·

>unlike some other countries Like which? Presumption of innocence is pretty universal around the globe. It has made its way into Western nations and parts of A

>unlike some other countries Like which? Presumption of innocence is pretty universal around the globe. It has made its way into Western nations and parts of Asia via Roman law and is also a principle of Islamic law. There used to be some historic outgrowths that could be called presumption of guilt in England, but even that was more similar to civil forfeiture and not an actual guilt-based legal system.

kawsper 2y ago
UK has this addition from the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act: > You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.
- maccard 2y ago
  I don't read that as assuming someone is not innocent until proven otherwise at all. I read that as "Holding back information that may be pertinent in an investigation will be looked upon poorly". It's not like the US is any better here - If a charge is trumped up or has bolt-ons to get you to take a plea deal, it's exactly the same thing, if not worse.
  - refurb 2y ago
    No, the US is far better. Silence can’t be used against you. That is better than silence being used against use. Conflating that with trumped up charges is irrelevant to that point.
    - sigmoid10 2y ago
      It can in fact. You should read "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" by James Duane - the guy who went viral on youtube for explaining why you should never talk to the police and later tried very hard to delete all uploads of this video. Because in the real world that strategy is more likely to get you convicted after all. Especially since the Supreme Court massively weakened the Fifth Amendement in 2013.
      - echoangle 2y ago
        > the guy who went viral on youtube for explaining why you should never talk to the police and later tried very hard to delete all uploads of this video Do you have a source for that?
        sigmoid10 2y ago
        He mentions it in this talk for example: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 https://youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 It also seems like he succeeded, because the original and all reuploads except for some ultra low-quality copies are gone from youtube.
        potato3732842 2y ago
        The bit about where money from the book would go was hilarious and also a great example of stereotypical attorney humor.
        echoangle 2y ago
        There's no mention in this of him trying to delete uploads (or I missed it, do you have a timestamp?). And also, the original lecture isn't a reupload but found on the channel of his own university (both at the time of the first and the second lecture): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
        sigmoid10 2y ago
        He mentions it several times throughout the talk. It's been a while since I've seen it, so I don't remember the times. But the whole talk basically tries to publicly revert his earlier view from the old presentation. The low quality dupe you found was uploaded years after the original video.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        > But the whole talk basically tries to publicly revert his earlier view from the old presentation. Damn, you need to watch it again. He only updates the advice to say that one needs to be explicit about their intention to remain silent and await an attorney.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      >Silence can’t be used against you It sure can, but in more hypocritical and roundabout ways: The cops take suspision on your silence, and push extra hard to get you, instead of letting you go after a routine questioning. Or the prosecution is offended by your silence and throws the book at you. Technically both get to swear that your silence was never an issue, while both being motivated to fuck you over because of it.
    - maccard 2y ago
      > Silence can’t be used against you. > Conflating that with trumped up charges is irrelevant to that point. They're two sides of the same coin. Let's say you are being accused of crime X, and you know you're innocent of it, and can prove it, because your spouse did it/you were hooking up with a congressman on grindr at the time/you were doing something else illegal you don't want to admit to/you believe the US justice system is fair and impartial. The sentencing for said federal crime is N years. The prosecution charging you with crime X, plus Y plus Z with a potential max sentence of M years, or you can take a plea for N-2 years". It all boils down to "are you willing to gamble spending M (where M >>>> N-2) years in prison based on an accusation designed to intimidate you".
    - throw0101c 2y ago
      > No, the US is far better. > Silence can’t be used against you. As sibling comments have mentioned, not (no longer?) true. "Opinion recap: If you want to claim the Fifth…" > Because merely keeping quiet when police ask damaging questions is not claiming a right to silence, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, prosecutors may use that silence against the suspect at the trial. If an individual is voluntarily talking to the police, he or she must claim the Fifth Amendment right of silence, or lose it; simply saying nothing won’t do, according to the ruling. * https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinion-recap-if-you-want-to-claim-the-fifth/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinion-recap-if-you-want... "Silence as evidence: U.S. Supreme Court holds that the Fifth Amendment does not bar using a suspect’s silence as evidence of guilt" * https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=61f0c293-44b7-4614-9437-98574bb319c3 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=61f0c293-44b7...
      - dataflow 2y ago
        Er, what? This seems quite better than the UK where claiming the right can still cause it to be used against you...
  - dataflow 2y ago
    > I don't read that as assuming someone is not innocent until proven otherwise at all. I read that as "Holding back information that may be pertinent in an investigation will be looked upon poorly". Could you explain how one can exercise their right to silence without holding back information?
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      The US right to remain silent is different from the presumption of innocence.
      - dataflow 2y ago
        They're different concepts but they're very tightly coupled (hence why both were being discussed here). If you could be presumed guilty then your right to remain silent would be rendered moot. And the entire reason the right to remain silent was established was so that innocent people wouldn't be deemed guilty (and thus punished, tortured, etc.) merely based on being coerced into testifying against themselves. Without it you would be as good as guilty.
        shkkmo 2y ago
        They aren't that tightly coupled. The presumption of innocence is a pretty much universal legal concept. The right no remain silent is right specifically granted by law and not nearly as universal; the specifics of how and where you can invoke that right vary from country to country.
- sigmoid10 2y ago
  That's not presuming guilt. And I'm pretty sure the other commenter wasn't referring to the UK as some countries.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
insane_dreamer 2y ago
IIRC the Napoleonic Code doesn't have presumption of innocence, and countries with a legal system built on that code don't have it either -- but I haven't researched it recently so couldn't say which those are.
- lores 2y ago
  The Napoleonic Code is a civil code, not penal, so presumption of innocence is not part of it. Regardless, all European countries have presumption of innocence, except in very specific cases (like England's libel law).
  - Gormo 2y ago
    The Napoleonic code is a civil code in contrast to a common-law system, not civil law in contrast to criminal law. These are two different meanings of the term "civil", and the Napoleonic code absolutely does deal with criminal offenses.
    - lores 2y ago
      What? No. The Napoleonic Code (Code Napoléon) is for civil law in contrast to criminal law. The penal code promulgated under Napoleon is called... the Penal Code, and is not the one that was adopted across Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code
- sigmoid10 2y ago
  The Napoleonic Code was civil law, nor criminal law. It doesn't deal with these issues. And it treated the burden of evidence similarly to how modern civil procedures do. France and all other countries that emerged from it have a variation of In dubio pro reo.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    You're using the wrong meaning of "civil law" here. The Napoleonic Code absolutely did include criminal law.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> pretty universal around the globe except in "rule by law" (as opposed to "rule of law") countries like China where if the police say you're guilty, you will be found guilty, 100% guaranteed

kawsper 2y ago

UK has this addition from the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act: > You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.

maccard 2y ago
I don't read that as assuming someone is not innocent until proven otherwise at all. I read that as "Holding back information that may be pertinent in an investigation will be looked upon poorly". It's not like the US is any better here - If a charge is trumped up or has bolt-ons to get you to take a plea deal, it's exactly the same thing, if not worse.
- refurb 2y ago
  No, the US is far better. Silence can’t be used against you. That is better than silence being used against use. Conflating that with trumped up charges is irrelevant to that point.
  - sigmoid10 2y ago
    It can in fact. You should read "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" by James Duane - the guy who went viral on youtube for explaining why you should never talk to the police and later tried very hard to delete all uploads of this video. Because in the real world that strategy is more likely to get you convicted after all. Especially since the Supreme Court massively weakened the Fifth Amendement in 2013.
    - echoangle 2y ago
      > the guy who went viral on youtube for explaining why you should never talk to the police and later tried very hard to delete all uploads of this video Do you have a source for that?
      - sigmoid10 2y ago
        He mentions it in this talk for example: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 https://youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 It also seems like he succeeded, because the original and all reuploads except for some ultra low-quality copies are gone from youtube.
        potato3732842 2y ago
        The bit about where money from the book would go was hilarious and also a great example of stereotypical attorney humor.
        echoangle 2y ago
        There's no mention in this of him trying to delete uploads (or I missed it, do you have a timestamp?). And also, the original lecture isn't a reupload but found on the channel of his own university (both at the time of the first and the second lecture): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
        sigmoid10 2y ago
        He mentions it several times throughout the talk. It's been a while since I've seen it, so I don't remember the times. But the whole talk basically tries to publicly revert his earlier view from the old presentation. The low quality dupe you found was uploaded years after the original video.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        > But the whole talk basically tries to publicly revert his earlier view from the old presentation. Damn, you need to watch it again. He only updates the advice to say that one needs to be explicit about their intention to remain silent and await an attorney.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >Silence can’t be used against you It sure can, but in more hypocritical and roundabout ways: The cops take suspision on your silence, and push extra hard to get you, instead of letting you go after a routine questioning. Or the prosecution is offended by your silence and throws the book at you. Technically both get to swear that your silence was never an issue, while both being motivated to fuck you over because of it.
  - maccard 2y ago
    > Silence can’t be used against you. > Conflating that with trumped up charges is irrelevant to that point. They're two sides of the same coin. Let's say you are being accused of crime X, and you know you're innocent of it, and can prove it, because your spouse did it/you were hooking up with a congressman on grindr at the time/you were doing something else illegal you don't want to admit to/you believe the US justice system is fair and impartial. The sentencing for said federal crime is N years. The prosecution charging you with crime X, plus Y plus Z with a potential max sentence of M years, or you can take a plea for N-2 years". It all boils down to "are you willing to gamble spending M (where M >>>> N-2) years in prison based on an accusation designed to intimidate you".
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > No, the US is far better. > Silence can’t be used against you. As sibling comments have mentioned, not (no longer?) true. "Opinion recap: If you want to claim the Fifth…" > Because merely keeping quiet when police ask damaging questions is not claiming a right to silence, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, prosecutors may use that silence against the suspect at the trial. If an individual is voluntarily talking to the police, he or she must claim the Fifth Amendment right of silence, or lose it; simply saying nothing won’t do, according to the ruling. * https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinion-recap-if-you-want-to-claim-the-fifth/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/opinion-recap-if-you-want... "Silence as evidence: U.S. Supreme Court holds that the Fifth Amendment does not bar using a suspect’s silence as evidence of guilt" * https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=61f0c293-44b7-4614-9437-98574bb319c3 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=61f0c293-44b7...
    - dataflow 2y ago
      Er, what? This seems quite better than the UK where claiming the right can still cause it to be used against you...
- dataflow 2y ago
  > I don't read that as assuming someone is not innocent until proven otherwise at all. I read that as "Holding back information that may be pertinent in an investigation will be looked upon poorly". Could you explain how one can exercise their right to silence without holding back information?
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    The US right to remain silent is different from the presumption of innocence.
    - dataflow 2y ago
      They're different concepts but they're very tightly coupled (hence why both were being discussed here). If you could be presumed guilty then your right to remain silent would be rendered moot. And the entire reason the right to remain silent was established was so that innocent people wouldn't be deemed guilty (and thus punished, tortured, etc.) merely based on being coerced into testifying against themselves. Without it you would be as good as guilty.
      - shkkmo 2y ago
        They aren't that tightly coupled. The presumption of innocence is a pretty much universal legal concept. The right no remain silent is right specifically granted by law and not nearly as universal; the specifics of how and where you can invoke that right vary from country to country.
sigmoid10 2y ago
That's not presuming guilt. And I'm pretty sure the other commenter wasn't referring to the UK as some countries.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

insane_dreamer 2y ago

IIRC the Napoleonic Code doesn't have presumption of innocence, and countries with a legal system built on that code don't have it either -- but I haven't researched it recently so couldn't say which those are.

lores 2y ago
The Napoleonic Code is a civil code, not penal, so presumption of innocence is not part of it. Regardless, all European countries have presumption of innocence, except in very specific cases (like England's libel law).
- Gormo 2y ago
  The Napoleonic code is a civil code in contrast to a common-law system, not civil law in contrast to criminal law. These are two different meanings of the term "civil", and the Napoleonic code absolutely does deal with criminal offenses.
  - lores 2y ago
    What? No. The Napoleonic Code (Code Napoléon) is for civil law in contrast to criminal law. The penal code promulgated under Napoleon is called... the Penal Code, and is not the one that was adopted across Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code
sigmoid10 2y ago
The Napoleonic Code was civil law, nor criminal law. It doesn't deal with these issues. And it treated the burden of evidence similarly to how modern civil procedures do. France and all other countries that emerged from it have a variation of In dubio pro reo.
- Gormo 2y ago
  You're using the wrong meaning of "civil law" here. The Napoleonic Code absolutely did include criminal law.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> pretty universal around the globe except in "rule by law" (as opposed to "rule of law") countries like China where if the police say you're guilty, you will be found guilty, 100% guaranteed