He told them that he was comitting crimes and all that
When the accused states that they are guilty, they are admitting to committing the crime they have been charged with. If they plead not guilty, it means they are denying the charges against them and the case will proceed to trial where the prosecution will have to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't believe the Legal system would be a whole lot different at all because even though it is said that a person is innocent until proven guilty, the media and internet these days convict people before a trial. Either way, the Defense team has always had the job of rebutting the prosecutions theory and proving the accused innocent.Added; The question actually describes the French system of justice (Napoleanic Code) which seems to work just fine for them. However, the first contributor is INCORRECT in stating that the accused must prove themselves innocent. In the US the defendant is ALWAYS presumed innocent and it is the PROSECUTIONS's job to prove them guilty, not the other way around.
This is a standard of proof needed in a court of law. You must prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty for them to be convicted. Here are a couple of sentences.Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof in a court.Have you proved beyond reasonable doubt that my client is guilty?
Louis Reil was called a coward because he was tending to prove to the govermnet that he was the prophet of the new world.Also louis reil was in search for more power by asking the metis to join him at batoche.
The prosecution's role in a trial is to present evidence and arguments to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They also cross-examine witnesses presented by the defense and advocate for a guilty verdict. Ultimately, their goal is to secure a conviction for the crimes the defendant is accused of.
(in the US) That is the beauty of the US Legal System. You do NOT have to prove that you are not guilty, the prosecution must prove that you ARE guilty.
Yes.
not to feel guilty and to find evidence to prove you are guilty
Yes but the cops will have to prove them guilty
The Girondins didn't want or have to prove the royal family guilty. Everybody accepted the guilt of the king and queen as a fact after their flight to Varennes, in which they tried to flee France into Austria so that they could use foreign assistance to attack the revolutionary government. In fact, the Girondins were the people who were against King Louis XVI's execution. The Girondins wanted the king to be exiled. It was the Jacobins who got Louis executed.
Guilty of what? True, he had no authority from the French government to sell America the Louisiana Purchase, but I'm sure the statute of limitations has run out by now! And as Thomas Jefferson had no authority to buy it, I suppose both nations are even!
For a person to be guilty, someone has to prove with supportive reasons that the person did something wrong.
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime they are accused of in order to secure a guilty verdict.
How can you prove that you WERE involved!!!??? Admit it when questioned by law enforcement and plead guilty when arraigned.
They didn't if you were charged you were guilty. The Trial was a farce and the only way to not be declared guilty was to refuse to go to trial.
Don't understand what is meant by the question. THAT's what prosecutors DO! Their job is to attempt to prove that the defendant IS guilty, and that his not guilty plea is a lie.
If the police and the prosecuting attorney can't prove you are guilty the case gets thrown out, innocent until proven guilty. As far as your written statement, you would have to explain some reason why you would lie (you were coerced by the police, drunk, someone paid you)