Presumption Essays

“Although presumption is not evidence and has no weight as such, it does make a prima facie case for the party in whose favor it exists and points out the party who has the burden of going forward […], but it must be remembered at all times that basic facts must be supplied before a presumption comes into existence, […], and it has a binding effect until successfully rebutted by the other party.”1 Keywords:- Presumption, Preliminary Treatise, Dialogical theory Concept and Definitions: The term presumption

The presumption of innocence is an important component of the criminal law system. When a person is charged with a criminal offence the law regards the alleged offender as innocent until proved guilty. In other words, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is indeed guilty of the crime alleged. This position however, is somewhat different when persons are suspected of money laundering and terrorist financing offences. To say then, that the cardinal

The presumption of innocence is widely accepted as an integral and significant principle of the criminal justice that lawyers all over the world adhere to as it is a tenant of the Criminal Law. The presumption of innocence can be defined as a misnomer; a name that is wrongly or unsuitably applied to a person or an object. It also can be described as an assumption made towards an innocent that is included in the absence of opposing evidence. It is shown in the case of Taylor v Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478

criminal justice than the presumption of innocence that is accorded to the defendant in every criminal trial.” Furthermore, the “Blackstone ratio” of 10”:1 that “the law holds that it is better than ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer” was upheld in Coffin v U.S. where Justice White quoted a Roman official who wrote that “it was better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.” This shows that the presumption of innocence plays a significant

Critical thinking is described as intellectual thinking skills and extensive range of psychological abilities, needed to analyze the arguments in a more logical/reasonable manner rather than on the basis of bias and presumptions. It defines the process to discover and check the accuracy of assumptions by exploring and considering different perspectives, possibilities and conclusions in order to make intelligent and effective decisions, based on evident information (Bassham, Irwin, Nardone & Wallace

The question requires one to discuss as to what extent has the “Presumption of Innocence” as articulated by Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] , has changed in light of Human Rights Act [HRA] 1998. Woolmington v DPP is a landmark House of Lords [ HOL] case where the Presumption of Innocence was first articulated # . In delivering his judgement for a unanimous Court, Viscount Sankey made his famous "Golden thread’ speech . ‘Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread

Privileges, presumptions, and judicial notices seem to be misunderstood when dealing with court issues. There are many interpretations of these terms as they are defined within the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). The common issues that come up are in reference to when certain privileges apply; when presumptions can be used in evidence; and how judicial notices apply, what their boundaries are, and what can or cannot be noticed. This paper will look at privileges, presumptions, and judicial notices

Dōmo arigatō, Ms. Roboto: Perception, Presumptions and Personification of Personal AI Computational technology continues to grow at an exponential rate. Artificial Intelligence is one of the largest interdisciplinary fields within computation with many complex uses. As AI leaves the labs and is engineered for consumers into Personal AI it is shaped by society to fit the average user. In this paper I will explore how Personal AI's are framed using three design ideas: UI, UX, and UD. What is in

The question requires one to discuss as to what extent has the “Presumption of Innocence” as articulated by Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] , has changed in light of Human Rights Act [HRA] 1998. Woolmington v DPP is a landmark House of Lords [ HOL] case where the Presumption of Innocence was first articulated # . In delivering his judgement for a unanimous Court, Viscount Sankey made his famous "Golden thread’ speech . ‘Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread

In the article “Opt-out organ donation without presumptions”, published by Dr. Ben Saunders, he is trying to promotes / defend “opt-out organ donation system”, where people who did not give their consents are automatically, considered as giving their consent to donate their organs when they passes away. This is rather completely opposite to the current organ donation system, Opt-in system, which we are more familiar with, where only people who have given their consents are the group of people who

address within the criminal justice system regarding the crime control model there is the presumption of guilt and the presumption of innocence. According the textbook, presumption of guilt is when “ the defendants who are not screened out early in the process by police and prosecutors are probably guilty and therefore can be passed quickly through the remaining stages in the process.” Where as the presumption of innocence is “holds that defendants are to be treated as through their guilt is an open

12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose is a play that shows how the jury system works by showing how 12 male jury members have to figure out if the defendant, an 18 year old boy, killed his father. All the jurors vote that he is guilty. They then have to look at the story, eye witness testimonies and more to show the one juror, Juror 8, that the defendant is guilty. The 11th Juror, who is a significant and important jury member, has grown and developed throughout the play. My idea on this topic is that the

In the case of the Steven Avery and Brendan Dasey’s trial, there were quite a few errors in the trial. Even though I believe Steven Avery is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt I also believe that the law made several large mistakes. The constitutional rights that were violated by the Wisconsin justice system were among the sixth and the fifth amendments. The fifth amendment in the aspect of Miranda rights states that a person being interrogated or receiving custodial questioning must be told their

the state of nature of man and spirit. Beowulf triumphs over the dangers born of the innate presumption, desperation, cowardice, and hatred of man by providing temporary respite through his

Introduction Sir William Blackstone had once stated that “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. The statement clearly shows the weight of the presumption of innocence as to the working of the criminal justice system. Hence, a series of international human rights treaties were introduced to give effect to this. This is in support of the idea - he who asserts must prove, which means, the prosecution bears the burden of proof. The burden of proof

to be admissible and used in the court system range from proof, presumptions, similar facts, the classification

In “Twelve Angry Men” by Reginald Rose, the play consists of 12 jurors facing the decision of a murder case. This murder case isn’t a particular case. It was supposed to be obvious in some eyes, but not for Juror 8. Through one disagreement that could have been decided from the simple words of “Guilty.” Multiple jurors have caused and/or participated in actions throughout the play, but one juror who stood out was Juror 11 and his development throughout the play. He began by saying “Guilty” and stuck

most importantly presumption of innocence. The fairly recent Criminal Code and Another Act Amendment Act 2008 has seen the introduction of judge only trials which has, although complicating the system, considerably improved the right of the accused to a fair trial. Although, as quoted by Justice Dean, juries were “administered in criminal cases as a protection against the tyranny of arbitrary punishment...” this amendment was implemented to protect the accused’s right to presumption of innocence without

There exists a generally accepted presumption that humans lie. Yet, in the context of criminal interrogations practices have demonstrated humans can lie when they deny culpability; however, when they admit guilt it is inherently truthful. Because of this: (1) Trial judges tend to presume that defendants who have confessed, are guilty and rarely suppress confessions; (2) Jurors are also unduly prejudiced against defendants by confessions; and (3) there is a presumption of truthfulness unless they were

stated that section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act provided for a shift in onus on him as he had to prove that he was not in possession for the purpose of trafficking, he claimed that the reverse onus created by the presumption of possession for purposes of trafficking violated the presumption of innocence guarantee under s.11(d) of the Charter and the fact that it infringed his right to be presumed innocent. The crown’s argument was that section 8 of the NCA is valid based on section 1 of the Canadian