Re: What is the "Presumption of Innocence"

"neepy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Immortalist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "neepy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Christene Herr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > The idea of innocent until proven guilty is one of the things that
sets
> > > > America apart.
> > >
> > > Really?  Maybe you could provide a list of countries that don't adopt
> > > this assumption in criminal trials?
> > >
> >
> > In the West aren't there two main legal schools of thought, one holding
true
> > to Roman law and the other influenced by the "English Common Law"
tradition
> > or what we call case law? In countries that opt for the prior have a
nasty
> > reputation as concerns suspects? Whereas in the later we evolve the
truth we
> > can find from an accumulation of similar cases. This later case instead
of
> > iron principle inflexible and rigid.
>
> Well, that isn't an answer to the question ("Which countries don't
> adopt the presumption of innocence in criminal trials?").
>

Those countries that have mainly statute law like France, Austria,
Cheko...etc.. who have a tendency to pay less attention to past cases

> But, I would ask you a similar question:  Name the "nasty" (Western)
> countries that depend on Roman Law.
>

Whole bunches of em, but less now since English Common Law became popular.
The times have changed and what works works its way in. Before English
Common Law it was all Roman Law in the West as it still is in some places.

> Also, "case law" doesn't get you to "The Truth", it just says "In
> similar cases we decided this in the past, so lets do the same again"
> (so it is pretty inflexible, too).  Most Western countries (I'm no
> expert... maybe all) depend on a mixture of "case" and "statute" law.

Well, if we continue to pile up cases and descisions would you agree the
referential data base at least gets bigger? I suppose we could do trial and
error on statutes also but thats a bit more tricky. Much easier to argue for
a group of individual cases as an impitus to changing statutes.

Sorry if it sounded like I claimed that all law in common law is sufficient
to get truth alone. I didn't mean that but thanx for pointing the logic out.