In the US - Individual citizens do not have the power to "charge" anyone with a crime. They can only "accuse" someone of an offense. Law enforcement is responsible for investigating the accusation and, if sufficient probable cause is found to exist, THEY will 'charge' the accused with the appropriate offense. The case will then be presented to the prosecutor's office, and if the charge appears sustainable, the accused will be bound over for trial. If he is found not guilty at trial, unless the prosecution appeals the verdict, that is the end of it.
somebody accused him of child molestation that proved to not be true in the end but alot of people turned against him and stuff. look him up on wikipedia xD
The common justification is having weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was accused of having nuclear weapons that proved later to not true. Syria was accused of using chemical weapons against Syrian people although the inspection team have not yet proved whether the chemical weapons used by the government or by the opposition.
no
Ernest Rutherford
true but his experiment proved him wrong :)
It proved to the world how crazy his allegations were when he accused so many innocent Americans of communism.
Rights of the accused have nothing to do with being just or unjust to the victim since, using the U.S. justice system as the example, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In practice and in reality, this can actually be very unjust to a victim, depending on the crime, as the victim had their rights stripped of them by whoever committed a crime against them yet the accused has a myriad of rights to protect them and the process of proving guilt can be further insult to injury to the victim. When guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the victim is supposed to feel like justice was served. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
Rights of the accused have nothing to do with being just or unjust to the victim since, using the U.S. justice system as the example, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In practice and in reality, this can actually be very unjust to a victim, depending on the crime, as the victim had their rights stripped of them by whoever committed a crime against them yet the accused has a myriad of rights to protect them and the process of proving guilt can be further insult to injury to the victim. When guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the victim is supposed to feel like justice was served. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
1. If a man has accused another of laying a nertu [death spell?] upon him, but has not proved it, he shall be put to death.
If you made somebody angry or you were an oddball or sometimes you may not even know how it happened. Once the hysteria began it was every 'man' for himself. Unforturnately, the very device that proved a person innocent was also the device that killed the accused.
It was expensive to build, and it proved to be ineffective against invaders.
The right to remain silent, which is proved through the US Supreme Court Case Miranda v. Arizona. He has the right to an attorney. He has the right to a jury of his peers.