[oclug] tuesday afternoon rant about the FBI and an isp

[rgiffin at cangurus.com]

On Tue, 20 March 2001, Ross Jordan wrote:

> 
> > 
> > On Tuesday 20 March 2001 14:07, Brad Barnett wrote:
> > 
> > > The law does to!  Heh.  Depending on what offense you are charged with, the
> > > onus of proof can be on you!  Said another way, if you are charged with
> > > certain (rare) offenses, you are guilty and you have to prove you are
> > > innocent of the crime!  The state has no need to prove you guilty.
> > 
> > Name one.  Name one offence where the onus of proof under the law is on the 
> > accused. 
> I'm fairly certain rape (or at least certain forms of sexual abuse)
> have the onus on the accused to prove innocence (i.e. guilty until 
> proven innocent).

Don't confuse "steps to protect the innocent" with presumption of guilt.  The same thing applies with child abuse.  They will take steps to protect the innocent, that are taken regardless of the outcome of the trial.  Still, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. (Besides, you seriously need to talk to a woman who has been through the meat grinder they call justice if you say the offender is presumed guilty - ask her who's testimony was on trial, and who the law protected more - her or the accused.  I guarantee it wasn't her.)

Rod.