|
First off, thanks for the first logical counter argument I've seen since the beginning of this thread, it's refreshing.
However, even your quoted sources proved my statement. The burden of proof -always- lies on prosecuting parties, in any situation in life, criminal, civil, or otherwise. The level of proof required for conviction in legal cases obviously varies from one to another, with more serious accusations generally requiring more proof.
Anyways, you're correct in the fact that were this a civil case (which it is most similar to in a legal sense), the burden of proof would only require that the allegations be proved "more likely to be true than not", which has already been proven. However, in civil cases convictions are not truth - far from it. Go look up the percentage of civil cases overturned after they are appealed and move to a higher court (and coinciding higher quality evidence requirements). The civil court system is designed in such a way to make cases flow as smoothly and quickly as possible without much regard to scrutiny. A vast majority of cases seen in civil court are basically "no contests", in that one party is so obviously guilty or not guilty that scrutiny would serve only to waste time and money.
[edit] I chose to relate that part of my post to law because justice systems were modelled around common social ethics and practices in everyday life. The fact that this isn't technically a legal case doesn't change the underlying concepts - you have to prove accusations; see the comment on the bottom of my last post.
|