In the United States, once charged with a crime, you are innocent until proven guilty. I used to think it was “guilty until proven innocent” in France. But a couple of years ago, I forget exactly where or when, I heard a tv commentator say it was a little more complicated than that in France. He didn’t offer anymore details than that.
So what are the legal standards for guilt in other countries? Specifically, what are the legal standards in France, Britain, Canada and Mexico? (And what are they in any other place you can think of or know of too.)
Australia is pretty much as the US, though I thinhk there are some limited exceptions with regards to habeas corpus etc, concerning some newfangled laws regarding terrorism.
A presumption of guilt in other countries seems to be a frequent contention in the US for some reason. I haven’t heard of it wrt any modern liberal democracy (and the Wikipedia article, also the French-language article which refers at length to law and procedure in France, bear me out.)
There isn’t really any such thing as a “plea” in France. Even if the accused confession the trial must continue and the accused’s confession is merely entered into evidence. The prosection must still prove it’s case (though I imagine it’s very easy for them to do in that case). France (like most of Europe) uses civil law derived from Roman law (very different than common law). The basics of criminal procedure aren’t going to differ much in Commonwealth countries.
Something interesting I discovered was that Norwegian prosecutors are appealing DVD Jon’s aquittal so apparently a finding of not guilty isn’t always final in foreign countries
My recollection is that under the ancien régime in France, it was the case that the accused had to prove his innocence, but that this principle was changed following the revolution.
Certainly, the modern formulation of the principle in the French Code of Criminal Procedure sounds much the same as in common law jurisdictions:
Why the idea should persist that France does not have the presumption of innocence is something of a puzzle. I’ve heard it many times.
The OP also asked about other countries. The principle of the presumption of innocence evolved in English common law, and from thence into other common law jurisdictions, such as the U.S. The clasic modern formulation of the principle is found in Viscount Sankey’s decision in the House of Lords case of Woolmington v. D.P.P., [1935]:
The drawback to this statement is that it recognises “statutory exceptions”, i.e. Parliament could reverse the onus of proof by ordinary statute. I’m not sure how the European Human Rights Code has affected this point in the U.K.
Canada received the presumption of innocence as part of the common law, relying on cases such as Woolmington. In 1982, we entrenched the presumption of innocence in s. 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
but I do know that European courts mostly operate under an inquisitorial system, where the US uses an adversarial system, which may be the source of the confusion.
Apart form the very unfortunate associations with the word “inquisitorial”, the biggest difference seems to be that the US system has the judge act as an overseer who’s only concerned with the facts presented by the two parties. In the inquisitorial system, the court takes part in getting the facts - the judge can question witnesses etc. etc. The results, however, seem to be pretty much the same.
Oh, and the principle of presumed innocence is adhered to in every European jurisdiction that I know of.
Just to be a bit pedantic, if we are going to discuss what the OP asks, the title of the thread should be changed to: “Who has the burden of proof in criminal cases in other countries.” The standard of guilt would be the bit about “beyond a reasonable doubt” here.
I am under the impression that Guilty until Proven Innocent is explicitly held to in Mexico. Anyone know if that is correct? Google has failed me. (Or more likely I have failed Google.)
That’s the case in Canada. Our Charter provision reads:
Appeals in criminal matters by either side have long been a part of our system, and I think in the U.K. as well. The appeal is part of the entire process. Same in most civil law countries, I understand.
In certain types of cases, you do effectively have to prove either that you were innocent, or that you took all reasonable steps to not commit the offence.
These are mostly related to Health & Safety and Food Hygiene laws.
Put simpy, if someone has a serious accident and you are the person responsible for the premises, you have to prove that the measures in place were adequate and you had been diligent in your actions, all the prosecution needs to do is prove the incident ocurred that you had the duty of care - that you neglected or failed to discharge that duty of care and as a result the incident ocurred and as an aside, being ignorant of the danger or not having sufficient knowledge and experience is not a defence.
The ECHR has been ratified by more than forty European nations, including all members of the Council of Europe (which is not to be confused with the EU; the Council of Europe has 47 member states which cover all of Europa and large parts of Central Asia (list of member states).
So in all of these nations, there definitely is a presumption of innocence, at least formally.
