|
||
|
|
|||||||
| Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
|
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
| View Poll Results: Making someone guilty until proven innocent | |||
| is a dangerous move |
|
18 | 69.23% |
| should be used only for dangerous criminals |
|
3 | 11.54% |
| is necessary in our world |
|
5 | 19.23% |
| Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
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 Jam it back in, in the dark. |
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 There's nowhere I can't reach. |