corby's innocence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrian

Thanks for the explanation. You are absolutely correct but did you notice that not once in your explanation of the system did you use the word 'innocent'.
My problem is not that I don't understand the system, it's just trying to work out where the presumption of innocence begins, if at all.
We'll have to agree do disagree.

---

No Probs.

Just as an aside if you look at a lot of cases where people have been found guilty, and then later found to be innocent, it is often the case that the investigators had made thier mind up who the offender was very earlier and built the case around that scenario. (I am talking grose misconduct in the investigation not technicalities)

Hopefully as training gets better this should happen only rarely.

I think this is one of the reasons I am reasonably passionate about the mindset of police and the presumption of innocence. We must always let the evidence point the way.

cheers

dazzler

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanP

Police have nothing to do with the determination of innocence or guilt. They just present persons before the court who, on face value, have committed an offence. In a court however, it is upon the prosecution to prove guilt. If the prosecution cannot, then you are set free unconditionally. At no stage are you presumed to be guilty until you are found guilty.

Dan

---

The term "presumed innocent" is a legal fiction and is part of the " presumed innocent UNTIL proven guilty". If a court finds a person not guilty it does not mean that the person is innocent, all it means that there was insufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.

It may well be, and often is, that the accused was guilty as hell but the prosecution failed to prove it, thus he is PRESUMED to be innocent.

That of course is the fundamental difference between our and the Indonesian justice system, where, once the prosecution makes out a case, you are presumed guilty unless you can prove your innocence.

In her case the only proof of her innocence acceptable to that Court would have been to have someone else come forward and admit it was theirs and take her place instead.


Peter.

Hey Dan,



Yes it is! :D

There are two basic presumptions as far as legalities are concerned and the only real purpose of both is to set out the approach the govt has to take.

One is of innocence and the other is of sanity.

Being arrested, charged and remanded does nothing to alter this presumption. It is a criminal process which is necessary to ensure that our system works. You cannot have incorrigible individuals set free until they have their day in court. Imagine that sort of system. it doesn't mean the person is presumed guilty, just an unacceptable risk. Its a balancing act of competing interests, that of the individuals right to freedom and the publics safety.

With both the presumptions, it is the role of the govt/public's representative (police or DPP or other statutory body) to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy their burden of proof and thereby overcome the presumptions.

The presumption of innocence has never meant that the govt in its various forms cannot deal as it pleases with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outback

Hey Dan,



Yes it is! :D

---

No it isn't.

After reading the West Australian today, it showed some travel agents with signs on their windows showing their point of veiw and those that were interveiwed vowed that they would "anything in their power" to encourage people not to travel to Bali.
Then, we have people calling the numerous charities assisting tsunami victims and they have either asked for a refund or that they're money not be directed to aid recipients in Indonesia.
We have relatives and wannabe's wrapping ribbons around trees in the city as show of support to poor Miss Corby.
The oz govt has offered legal aid and we even have QC's offering to go Pro bono to assist in her appeal.
IMO both are sickening. Is this about Corby, if it were, where is the support for the other 121 Australians held in foriegn jails?
Why has no one tried to boycott travel to Singapore, Malaysia etc, offered legal assistance or started wrapping ribbons around every bl***dy tree in the country in support of them?

It seems to me that the fact that Corby got 20 years isnt really the issue at all, it is the fact that the "Bali Bombers" didnt get an equal or higher sentence.
YES, i agree that the BB should be subjected to a suffering that they could'nt think possible whilst they remain on the mortal coil.
BUT, that isnt the point.

She had her day in court, drew her line in the sand and was found GUILTY......thats the point. Build a bridge and get over it.

Spot on maglite.

I wonder whether, in view of the fact that Corby has been found guilty, the Australian police are investigating who might have supplied her with 4 kg of marijuana. If they could nail her supplier, then it would end the debate as to her innocence.

Rocker

So maglite

how does it feel to be the only sane voice in this wonderful nuthouse ;)

Hear hear for the voice of sanity. This has been a bit of a media circus.

On the opinion page of today 1/6/05 Australian there are writers saying why she got a fair trial and also that it hurts Australia carrying on like this.

We are looking pretty dumb and stupid to those in SE Asia watching on

Stevo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rowan

So maglite

how does it feel to be the only sane voice in this wonderful nuthouse ;)

---

Hey, I'm sane ... the voices told me so :p

Richard

At least now they have started to call her "convicted drug smuggler" in lieu of "beauty school student." That was getting on my nerves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

That of course is the fundamental difference between our and the Indonesian justice system, where, once the prosecution makes out a case, you are presumed guilty unless you can prove your innocence.

Peter.

---

Hi Peter,

The prosecution in Indonesia needs to prove its case.

EG: Bob was seen to shoot Joe by Fred. There is a hole in Joe. Bobs prints are on the gun.

Under Indon law there is case against Bob. Now if Bob cant show any lawful reason why he shot him or that someone else did it then he MAY/PROBABLY be found guilty by the court.

So to get off it is up to Bob to prove that it was lawful.

EG: Bobs mate Clem tells court that Bob and Joe were just mucking around and Joe told Bob it was a toy gun.

Bob MAY/PROBABLY get off.

It is not that different to our system just a different way of doing things. If there is a lawful defence then you have just as much chance of getting off here or there.

cheers

dazzler

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanP

No it isn't.

---

Yes it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outback

Yes it is.

---

No it isn't. :rolleyes: