Study guides

☆

Q: Is it better to prove an innocent man guilty or a guiltyman innocent?

Write your answer...

Submit

Still have questions?

Related questions

(in the US) You don't have to prove you're innocent - the prosecutor has to prove that you're guilty.

Yes.

(in the US) Under the US system of justice the defendnat does not have to prove they are innocent. It is the prosecutions burden to PROVE they are guilty.

It is nearly impossible to prove someone innocent. The best you can hope for is to persuade others that you are not guilty of what they accuse you of.

The condemnation of the judge will prove whether the suspect is innocent or guilty.

The prosecutor has the burden of proof in a criminal case. It is presumed that you are innocent till proven guilty. Thus, you do not carry the burden of having to prove that you are innocent, it falls to the prosecution to prove that you are guilty.

The law states 'a person is innocent until proven guilty' so unless you can prove they are guilty of an act then there is nothing you can do. If this is personal and not a crime then it is better to walk away from such a person rather than to waste your energy on trying to get them to admit they are innocent. Often people who lie or are deceitful will protect themselves by appearing innocent even though they know they are not.

Yes and he was found not guilty of all charges.

The prosecuter is trying to prove that the defendant is guilty, but the defense attorney is trying to prove that he is innocent.

The prosecution must prove the defendant is guilty. The defendant is innocent until then.

It means that either the jury (or judge) found you not to be guilty of the offense for which you were arrested - or - the prosecution failed to prove its case against you. Not guilty does NOT mean the same as being found innocent!

Certainly. In this country people are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

People also asked