guilty until proven innocent...

For centuries, our judiciary system has stated than someone is innoncent until proven guilty. (Un?) fortunately, this is changing slowly in Canada.

It started at the end of the 90s, when the bikers wars were at an all time high in Quebec. Bloc QUébécois intiated a bill (and it passed) that stated that criminal gangs now had to prove that they were not guilty, instead of the usual accusation proving their guilt.

However, the Conservative had extended it to juvenile crime. In other words, the teen's lawyer would have to prove that his client did not deserve an adult's sentence. The decision (see link provided) was recently overtuned by the Supreme court

SO, is reversing the innocent-until-proven-guilty tradition a dangerous move or a good one?

Carnet | Politique fédérale | Justice et jeunesse

I don't understand the connection between the third paragraph and the rest of your post, and the article that you linked does not help (because it is in French; did you know?). Lawyers have to prove that the client is innocent, or they have to prove that the client deserves a more lenient sentence? Those things aren't the same (I think (?)).

the 3rd paragraph was about our government extending the reversal of the guilt to teens, and it was overturned.

Canada is moving towards a system where the accused has to prove his innocence (and yes, prove that he deserves a more lenient sentence). Usually, it's the accusation that has to prove the person's guilt

This isn't about whether people should be considered guilty or innocent by default in general, but about where the burden of proof lies during bail hearings. In cases involving gun-related crime, the defence needs to show their client is not violent in order to have bail approved. It has nothing to do with a greater right to presumption of innocence. It's really pretty harmless.

Quote:

Lawyers have to prove that the client is innocent,

Actually, they don't have to prove they're innocent, just that they're not guilty.

I believe that this should only be used for criminals who have overwhelming evidence against them. Otherwise, many more people who don't deserve jail sentences could go to prison.

If there is overwhelming evidence, then it is not a case of guilty until proven innocent - you are merely reaffirming the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

I think shifting to a "Guilty until proven innocent" is a bad thing though - it puts the burden of proof on the accused, who very often has less resources than the accuser.

Quote:

However, the Conservative had extended it to juvenile crime. In other words, the teen's lawyer would have to prove that his client did not deserve an adult's sentence. The decision (see link provided) was recently overtuned by the Supreme court

Isn't that based on the offense? For example, as a Class 1 Misdemeanor, a DUI can be termed extreme or simply used against the criminal in a state of law. I was arrested on a Class 1 earlier this year for blowing a .116. I think my bond was like $1,000, but it's hefty enough because I can't find a job right now. But yeah, as a first time offense, they usually look at it differently than they would compared to minor consumption.

Sure, let's go right ahead and introduce that! Let the totalitarianism begin!

A person should NEVER have to prove their innocence, as there are many reasons they could get accused of a crime. If you set it up that way, you are giving the government the power to arrest anyone. And how would you control for the fact that some people have more financial means of proving their innocence (aka money, a good lawyer), while others don't?

NO.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Actually, they don't have to prove they're innocent, just that they're not guilty.

which goes as far as there is a possibility that the individual may not have done said crime. Of course, the Judge as the right to decide how remote that possibility can be.