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.
If an accused person had to prove their innocence, it would reverse the burden of proof, which is currently on the prosecution. This would likely lead to an increase in wrongful convictions, as it can be challenging for individuals to prove a negative (their innocence). It would also undermine the presumption of innocence, a fundamental principle in our legal system.
The day he tripped and broke his ankle was a lucky day for him; he was a conspirator in the robbery but spent the day in the emergency room instead, while the rest of them went to jail.
that people would be able to elect their government
During the Neolithic Age, there was no centralized government as we know it today. Instead, small communities or tribes were governed by informal leadership structures, typically based on kinship ties or the respect gained through skills and experience. Decision-making was often communal, with elders or respected individuals playing a significant role in guiding the community.
Most states will extradite individuals for burglary charges, as it is considered a serious offense. The extradition process typically involves states honoring each other's requests for apprehending and returning individuals accused of crimes across state lines.
Thoreau went to jail for refusing to pay taxes as a form of protest against the Mexican-American War and the institution of slavery. He believed that by going to jail, he was standing up for his principles and refusing to support a government that he believed was unjust.
becausIn mercantilism, the government decides pricing instead of the consumer.e it is
In the US - defendants are not required to PROVE their innocence. However - if you are involved in a court action you would have already been indicted due to the existence of probable cause that you WERE involved in the offense. Then - instead of proving your innocence, you would have to present proof that you are NOT GUILTY.
He asked for a better government at once.
ancient Egypt had a different religion and type of government. They also used hieroglyphics to write instead of Arabic. Modern Egypt has a president that is elected and not a living god pharaoh.
Yes, because neither government mentioned here is a 'base form' of government, but is instead an administrative form it can find many different base forms to support it.
Workers would have earned more in salaries and wages
instead of being a government based on the rule of the king it was based upon the rule of the majorityMajority
The government is not a "who" but a "what" instead. It's the organization of both electected, appointed and hired people who perform all the acts of government.
The government is not a "who" but a "what" instead. It's the organization of both electected, appointed and hired people who perform all the acts of government.
because Elizabeth was accused of trying to kill Mary. Elizabeth was too a protestant and many wanted her on the throne instead of Mary.
military dictatorship
atheism