About 20 years ago, I saw a documentary about Japanese prisons. One of the things mentioned was that in Japan, the accused in a criminal trial are considered guilty until proven innocent.
Now, I don’t know. The narrator may have meant how things worked in fact, and not in law. Still, it made me wonder – do any nations have something actually on the books that states that the accused bears the burden of proof in a criminal trial?
I understand that such a codification runs directly counter to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So I’m thinking that if such a written law exists, it would be in nations under widely-recognized repressive regimes such as North Korea and Myanmar. If it were actually true of Japan, I’d be surprised.
I remember reading somewhere that the Japanese criminal justice system is heavily inclined toward coercing confessions and then using the confession against the defendant. I don’t actually know the answer to the question, sorry.
Also, not necessarily thinking about judicial systems that ignore due process. The accused may very well be granted due process, and with vigor. However (in our hypothetical), once in court, the letter of the law required the accused to prove their innocence.
The old Soviet Union did not have a specific presumption of innocence, but rather a clause in their laws that said, in effect, “the fact that the prosecutor is bringing these charges does not necessarily mean the defendant is guilty.”
In other words, not innocent until proven guilty; probably guilty but the jury could decide to rule he was innocent.
They weren’t dumb enough to write that down in their constitution. They wanted to be able to argue about how their system was superior.
The rules didn’t apply to political crimes, of course. They were turned over to the KGB (or whatever it was called at that time – they changed their name several times) who dealt with it their own way.
The Soviet constitution was filled with little loopholes like that. For instance, they required a secret ballot in all elections. However, they did not require that people had to vote secretly. So the communist party members would go to the polling place, stand out in the middle and say, “I don’t need to vote in secret! I’m voting Communist all the way!” and mark their ballot for all to see. Then another party member would do the same thing. And another. And then, someone shows up an wants to go into a booth to vote secretly. You can bet his name was taken down.
There was a really bad Star Trek TNG episode where some planet they’re visiting has a “you must prove your innocence” system. I’m not even sure how that would work. Who has to prove their innocence of what. Somebody would have to make the determination to accuse.
There were no juries in the Soviet Union (IIRC the jury system in modern Russia is still in the experimental phase). Minor crimes were tried before a single judge. Serious crimes were tried before a judge and two “People’s Assesors”. The assesors were laypersons who were politically reliable (but not nessisarily Party members) chosen by the local soviet to serve part-time for a 2 year term. In theory both acting together could overule the judge.
Was that the one with the Ayran aerobics instructers that punished every single crime in a randomly chosen zone with death on the spot (& wanted to execute Wesley for breaking a greenhouse playing ball)?
IIRC the Napoleonic system, common in many European countries, has the presumption of innocence. But, the accused is required to testify and answer questions form the prosecution and the judge. It is more of an inquisition like a congressional hearing, looking for “the truth”, than an impartial judge hearing 2 sides. The only protection is that the accused cannot be charged with perjury based on their testimony. The assumption was that a guilty person would say anytihng to get off.
[QUOTE=md2000;14002162The only protection is that the accused cannot be charged with perjury based on their testimony. The assumption was that a guilty person would say anytihng to get off.
I think it was a Deep Space 9 episode. I think the logic the Cardassians used is that since it would be a mistake to arrest and try an innocent man, and by definition, the Cardassian government can’t make mistakes, if someone is arrested, he must be guilty, and the purpose of a trial is for the accused to confess his guilt and thereby publicly reaffirm the infallibility and majesty of the state.
Because then he has to say something. Most lies have obvious holes to poke through. Since the purpose is “to find the facts” at least the defendant’s version is on the record. Since the court can cross-examine the defendant, there is ample opportunity to determine how their version matches other testimony and evidence.
If the person is going to claim someone else did it, for example, they will have to testify and make the accusation, which then could become evidence for another person’s trial.
I presume there is some sort of measure, like our preliminary hearings, that determines there is enough evidence so charges simple don’t become a fishing expedition, a way to force someone to explain themselves. Although - the USA has grand juries for that.
I guess you must have meant inquiry rather than inquisition.
And, the judge is supposed to be impartial, the difference with the US system is that the judge is not a passive referee, and can take the lead in the inquiry (in fact we used to have judges whose job was not to sit in court but to conduct the investigation). Remember that the judge’s goal is to discover the truth, not letting two parties with vested interests tell their stories and then go Solomon on it.
As it is the difference in philosphy between the two systems has little bearing on the upholding of the presumption of innocence.
There have been worse formal systems in the past - in revolutionary France under the Jacobins, and in Renaissance Venice, the governments were so completely totalitarian that it was not legal or even possible to offer a defense to prove one’s innocence, and there was therefore no need for a trial.
