corby's innocence

[dazzler]

My post wasn't meant to query bail conditions or anything like that it was just a response to the erroneous statement that we are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
If you are arrested then there is naturally a presumption of guilt otherwise you wouldn't have been arrested in the first place. If you are held without bail then there is also a presumption of guilt without you ever getting a chance to argue guilt or innocence. Even if you are bailed the court will set a hearing date so they are indicating that they presume you are guilty, otherwise they would let you go.
I think the "presumed innocent until proven guilty" line is just a way of keeping the huddled, unwashed masses in line.
Sorry Adrian but you are not presumed guilty just because you are charged (neither here or in Indonesia).

There is reasonable grounds to believe (at least in those preferring the charges) that there is a prima facie case, or enough evidence that you have a case to answer. This is not that you are guilty but that the very least there is enough evidence for a magistrate to determine the matter.

This may sound like semantics however there is a very important difference. As for the bail issue it is exactly as I said in my previous post. I cannot walk into the court and say that I want this guy refused bail because I reckon he is guilty. The only reasons are set out in the bail act that I briefly alluded to earlier. Most jurisdictions have even taken the seriousness of the offence out of the bail act hence people charged with murder being given bail.

So specifically at the legal level you are not presumed guilty just because you have been charged but that there is enough evidence to convince a magistrate that the matter should be heard before the court.

The reason for this is that a constable is not a magistrate or a lawyer and hence has a reasonable grasp of the law but are in no way an expert.

cheers

dazzler

[DanP]

No offence taken Adrian. I'm just not going to get into a 'yes it is, no it's not, yes it is' type argument with you over it. Been there, done that, couldn't be bothered with it again. So, you have your opinion and I respect that, even if I don't agree.

Dan.

P.S. What dazzler said. :p

[adrian]

Sorry Adrian but you are not presumed guilty just because you are charged (neither here or in Indonesia).

There is reasonable grounds to believe (at least in those preferring the charges) that there is a prima facie case, or enough evidence that you have a case to answer. This is not that you are guilty but that the very least there is enough evidence for a magistrate to determine the matter.

This may sound like semantics however there is a very important difference. As for the bail issue it is exactly as I said in my previous post. I cannot walk into the court and say that I want this guy refused bail because I reckon he is guilty. The only reasons are set out in the bail act that I briefly alluded to earlier. Most jurisdictions have even taken the seriousness of the offence out of the bail act hence people charged with murder being given bail.

So specifically at the legal level you are not presumed guilty just because you have been charged but that there is enough evidence to convince a magistrate that the matter should be heard before the court.

The reason for this is that a constable is not a magistrate or a lawyer and hence has a reasonable grasp of the law but are in no way an expert.

cheers

dazzler

Thanks for the explanation. You are absolutely correct but did you notice that not once in your explanation of the system did you use the word 'innocent'.
My problem is not that I don't understand the system, it's just trying to work out where the presumption of innocence begins, if at all.
We'll have to agree do disagree.

[DanP]

Police have nothing to do with the determination of innocence or guilt. They just present persons before the court who, on face value, have committed an offence. In a court however, it is upon the prosecution to prove guilt. If the prosecution cannot, then you are set free unconditionally. At no stage are you presumed to be guilty until you are found guilty.

The 'presumed innocent' term does not apply to the police investigating. They are just gathering evidence to prove the matter at court. If there is not enough evidence, we will not even present it to the court.

Dan

[Robert WA]

Perhaps I can clear up one point, at least.
A criminal trial, in Australia, is to ascertain whether the defendant/accused is guilty or not guilty. Innocence really has little to do with it. If the prosecution can't prove guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, then the finding is not guilty and the order is acquittal.

[dazzler]

Thanks for the explanation. You are absolutely correct but did you notice that not once in your explanation of the system did you use the word 'innocent'.
My problem is not that I don't understand the system, it's just trying to work out where the presumption of innocence begins, if at all.
We'll have to agree do disagree.
No Probs.

Just as an aside if you look at a lot of cases where people have been found guilty, and then later found to be innocent, it is often the case that the investigators had made thier mind up who the offender was very earlier and built the case around that scenario. (I am talking grose misconduct in the investigation not technicalities)

Hopefully as training gets better this should happen only rarely.

I think this is one of the reasons I am reasonably passionate about the mindset of police and the presumption of innocence. We must always let the evidence point the way.

cheers

dazzler

[Sturdee]

Police have nothing to do with the determination of innocence or guilt. They just present persons before the court who, on face value, have committed an offence. In a court however, it is upon the prosecution to prove guilt. If the prosecution cannot, then you are set free unconditionally. At no stage are you presumed to be guilty until you are found guilty.

Dan

The term "presumed innocent" is a legal fiction and is part of the " presumed innocent UNTIL proven guilty". If a court finds a person not guilty it does not mean that the person is innocent, all it means that there was insufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.

It may well be, and often is, that the accused was guilty as hell but the prosecution failed to prove it, thus he is PRESUMED to be innocent.

That of course is the fundamental difference between our and the Indonesian justice system, where, once the prosecution makes out a case, you are presumed guilty unless you can prove your innocence.

In her case the only proof of her innocence acceptable to that Court would have been to have someone else come forward and admit it was theirs and take her place instead.


Peter.

[outback]

Hey Dan,



Yes it is! :D

[boban]

There are two basic presumptions as far as legalities are concerned and the only real purpose of both is to set out the approach the govt has to take.

One is of innocence and the other is of sanity.

Being arrested, charged and remanded does nothing to alter this presumption. It is a criminal process which is necessary to ensure that our system works. You cannot have incorrigible individuals set free until they have their day in court. Imagine that sort of system. it doesn't mean the person is presumed guilty, just an unacceptable risk. Its a balancing act of competing interests, that of the individuals right to freedom and the publics safety.

With both the presumptions, it is the role of the govt/public's representative (police or DPP or other statutory body) to provide sufficient evidence to satisfy their burden of proof and thereby overcome the presumptions.

The presumption of innocence has never meant that the govt in its various forms cannot deal as it pleases with you.

[DanP]

Hey Dan,



Yes it is! :D


No it isn't.

[maglite]

After reading the West Australian today, it showed some travel agents with signs on their windows showing their point of veiw and those that were interveiwed vowed that they would "anything in their power" to encourage people not to travel to Bali.
Then, we have people calling the numerous charities assisting tsunami victims and they have either asked for a refund or that they're money not be directed to aid recipients in Indonesia.
We have relatives and wannabe's wrapping ribbons around trees in the city as show of support to poor Miss Corby.
The oz govt has offered legal aid and we even have QC's offering to go Pro bono to assist in her appeal.
IMO both are sickening. Is this about Corby, if it were, where is the support for the other 121 Australians held in foriegn jails?
Why has no one tried to boycott travel to Singapore, Malaysia etc, offered legal assistance or started wrapping ribbons around every bl***dy tree in the country in support of them?

It seems to me that the fact that Corby got 20 years isnt really the issue at all, it is the fact that the "Bali Bombers" didnt get an equal or higher sentence.
YES, i agree that the BB should be subjected to a suffering that they could'nt think possible whilst they remain on the mortal coil.
BUT, that isnt the point.

She had her day in court, drew her line in the sand and was found GUILTY......thats the point. Build a bridge and get over it.

[boban]

Spot on maglite.

[Rocker]

I wonder whether, in view of the fact that Corby has been found guilty, the Australian police are investigating who might have supplied her with 4 kg of marijuana. If they could nail her supplier, then it would end the debate as to her innocence.

Rocker

[Rowan]

So maglite

how does it feel to be the only sane voice in this wonderful nuthouse ;)

[Studley 2436]

Hear hear for the voice of sanity. This has been a bit of a media circus.

On the opinion page of today 1/6/05 Australian there are writers saying why she got a fair trial and also that it hurts Australia carrying on like this.

We are looking pretty dumb and stupid to those in SE Asia watching on

Stevo

[Daddles]

So maglite

how does it feel to be the only sane voice in this wonderful nuthouse ;)

Hey, I'm sane ... the voices told me so :p

Richard

[adrian]

At least now they have started to call her "convicted drug smuggler" in lieu of "beauty school student." That was getting on my nerves.

[dazzler]

That of course is the fundamental difference between our and the Indonesian justice system, where, once the prosecution makes out a case, you are presumed guilty unless you can prove your innocence.

Peter. Hi Peter,

The prosecution in Indonesia needs to prove its case.

EG: Bob was seen to shoot Joe by Fred. There is a hole in Joe. Bobs prints are on the gun.

Under Indon law there is case against Bob. Now if Bob cant show any lawful reason why he shot him or that someone else did it then he MAY/PROBABLY be found guilty by the court.

So to get off it is up to Bob to prove that it was lawful.

EG: Bobs mate Clem tells court that Bob and Joe were just mucking around and Joe told Bob it was a toy gun.

Bob MAY/PROBABLY get off.

It is not that different to our system just a different way of doing things. If there is a lawful defence then you have just as much chance of getting off here or there.

cheers

dazzler

[outback]

No it isn't.
Yes it is.

[DanP]

Yes it is.

No it isn't. :rolleyes:

[ernknot]

This whole business about Corby is nothing more than racism in its worst form. " How dare those ..........put one of ours in their jail!!" ( indignation indignation) The press and TV have made a mint out of this and don't care who they trample on in the process. No one gives a **** about the Aussies jailed in other countries. Some are from a different ethnic background but nevertheless still Aussies. Corby made the news because she is easy on the eye and female. Had it been a guy, what the hell let him fry!
The very press who constantly ram down our throats things like racism, racial villification etc. are really guilty of promoting racism towards the Indonesians. Mass hysteria regarding the sentencing and condition of the cells the competence of the defence team and so on has turned public opinion against Indonesia. I am not keen on them either, not because of their race but because of the enormous chip on their shoulder regarding our way of life and their religous beliefs.
Why don't we worry about more important things like who will win the AFL Final and who will win the Origin Series between NSW and QLD.
I will say no more.

[ozwinner]

Sounds like its time for your pill, and a good lie down.


Al :D

[RETIRED]

Keep it on topic!!! :mad:

FWIW there are actually 155 Australians held in SE Asian gaols.

[Gingermick]

I have a little sympathy for her but cannot swallow the story that someone forgot to take $40000 worth of pot out of her bag.
There would be a missing baggage handler somewhere.