answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

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.

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

AnswerBot

6d ago

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.

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: How would our legal system be different if an accused person had to prove his or her innocence instead of the government having to prove the person's guilt?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

How is mercantilism different than a market economy?

becausIn mercantilism, the government decides pricing instead of the consumer.e it is


Can one prove innocence?

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.


What does Thoreau ask for instead of no government?

He asked for a better government at once.


What is the difference between modern and ancient Egypt?

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.


What is a form of government that is often totalitarian and authoritarian and can be led by one person or many people?

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.


If the government had supported unions instead of management in the late 19th century how moght their lives as workers been different?

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?

instead of being a government based on the rule of the king it was based upon the rule of the majorityMajority


Who is in 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.


Who is in the 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.


When did elizabeth get locked up?

because Elizabeth was accused of trying to kill Mary. Elizabeth was too a protestant and many wanted her on the throne instead of Mary.


What was ruled by they army instead of the usual government?

military dictatorship


The soviet government dissaproved of religoin instead promoted what?

atheism