Law and Criminal Procedure
In recent history, the criminal procedure has shifted the burden of proof to the prosecution, implying that the prosecution's responsibility is to demonstrate that the accused is responsible, notwithstanding any reasonable doubt. This is contrary to getting the accused t...
Student Name
University
Course
Professor Name
Date
, 2
Law and Criminal Procedure
In recent history, the criminal procedure has shifted the burden of proof to the
prosecution, implying that the prosecution's responsibility is to demonstrate that the accused
is responsible, notwithstanding any reasonable doubt. This is contrary to getting the accused
to testify that they are innocent and having all doubts resolved in favor of the accused (Del
Carmen & Hemmens, 2016). The legislation also allows the defendant to choose their legal
counsel, and any accused person who cannot hire a lawyer is offered one by the authorities.
The general norm in law is that essential proof is accepted unless the statute states
otherwise. Rumors and gossip are not admissible as proof unless the defendant confesses to
saying the statements asserted against him (Capers, 2018). Whatever information was
obtained illegally and used as proof was rejected as legitimate evidence in court. In Australia,
for example, the power to ban illegal evidence is solely governed by ordinary law and
legislative requirements.
It is common law that an individual is presumed innocent unless proved guilty in
criminal proceedings in all jurisdictions. In all criminal proceedings, the prosecution has the
burden of evidence. The proposed changes to the Uniform Evidence Act of 1995 provide
that, in situations where an individual is suspected of offenses against another or property and
has a history of three prior convictions for comparable offenses, such proof of guilt can be
used against the defendant in court (Capers, 2018). If such an alteration is permitted, I believe
it would result in a travesty of justice in courts. Such an adjustment also severely weakens the
concept of the assumption of innocent and raises doubts about the defendant's innocence.
Previous conviction proof is one of the kinds of proofs that are not admissible in an
Australian criminal prosecution. These types of proof are objectionable for various reasons,
based on the circumstances, not that there is evidence that the proof being substantiated is
defective or constitutes a lie. Rumors and gossip, for example, are not acceptable evidence
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller THEEXCELLENCELIBRARY. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R181,13. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
