Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!decvax!yale-com!leichter From: leichter@yale-com.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: The Burden of Proof vs. Innocence Message-ID: <1631@yale-com.UUCP> Date: Fri, 17-Jun-83 12:36:53 EDT Article-I.D.: yale-com.1631 Posted: Fri Jun 17 12:36:53 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jun-83 04:26:32 EDT References: watarts.1876 Lines: 20 The two requirements, "presumption of innocence until proof of guilt" and "burden of proof is on the claimant" are fundamentally independent. The court system has no real use for the latter. Example: If the IRS claims you did not pay your taxes last year, they don't have to PROVE it; they simply have to claim that they have no records that you did. The burden of proof immediately falls on you to present a cancelled check or whatever. The burden cannot be on the IRS because there is no way they can PROVE you never paid. If you think there is something special about the IRS here, there isn't: The same situation applies in many private situations. If your landlord takes you to court, claiming you haven't paid rent in 6 months, you immediately have to prove you did. The same kind of thing applies any time the claim is of a non- event. It rarely arises in criminal cases because crimes are generally defined by POSITIVE events - it must be shown that you stole something, the burden isn't on you to show you did not. The presumption of innocence is more closely the result of the requirement that the burden of proof is on whoever wants to change the status quo. -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale