0
Should a person be accused of a crime even though he or she is not yet proven guilty or innocent?
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
People should be accused of crimes if there is some substantial evidence that they have committed them. You do not have to be proven guilty in order to be accused, because if a person is not accused, there won't be a trial, and there will therefore be no opportunity to prove either guilt or innocence in a legal sense.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Does a not guilty verdict mean the person was innocent?
A jury or court finds that the accused is not guilty, in reality the accused may not innocent.
Who decides if a person is guilty or innocent?
A jury is what determines if you are guilty, after being presented with evidence and hearing what the person accused is being charged for.
How did roman law protect the right of an accused person?
how did roman law protect the rights of an accused person?
Was an accused person guilty until proven innocent in the Roman Empire?
No, an accused person was not considered guilty until the outcome of his trial or hearing. Then he was either guilty or innocent. The only time he could be guilty without a trial was when he was caught redhanded doing a misdeed and there were witnesses to it. This was generally in the nature of petty crime, or street crime. Even in the case of major crimes, such as treason, which would be tried before the senate, a person was free and told when to report to the senate for trial. A person assumed guilty would not be awarded this freedom.
Should your legal system allow lawyers to defend people accused of committing severe or unpopular crimes?
Yes. The key word of your question is ACCUSED. Until a person is found guilty, they are innocent. Can you think of anyone that needs a lawyer more?
What must a person accused of a crime be offered?
A person accused of a crime must be offered a lawyer. If the person can't afford a lawyer, the courts will appoint one for free.
Why would homicide detective help innocent get justice?
Of course most detectives want to solve their case and get punishment for the guilty. If an innocent person is unjustly accused it's up to the detectives to find the evidence that will set the wrongly accused free.
In the US a person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty Is this policy the same in the Legal System?
Trial by jury or presumption of innocence
At a criminal trial the burden of proof is on an accused person to prove his or her innocence.?
Actually the answer is false. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. "Innocent until proven guilty".
What is the legal process by which one is found guilty or innocent?
A person is never found innocent. A person is found guilty or not guilty at the verdict phase of a criminal trial.
What is the difference between guilty or not guilty?
Guilty means that a person admits to committing the crime they were accused of. Not guilty means that a person denies committing the crime and the prosecution must prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in court.
What is an oath helper?
a person who swore that the accused was innocent
