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