If you are presumed innocent, it makes sense that OVERWHELMING evidence against you can result in a VERY LOW posterior probability of you being innocent. This sounds reasonable.
However a “balance of probabilities” sounds like something completely different, i.e. “one thing is more likely than the other”. How does this go along with presumption of innocence, where to my understanding the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt should be on the prosecution rather than defence?
In: Other
Balance of probabilities usually applies only to civil cases, where the stakes are rather lower; nobody is going to jail.
If I recall correctly, balance of probabilities tends to be used in civil cases. They are two equivalent parties, so the one who wins should be the one most likely to be correct.
Presumption of innocence takes place in criminal cases, where one is presumed to be innocent by default and the government has to show one is guilty.
That’s because it’s not part of the same system.
Balance of probabilities is standard of proof for civil cases and nobody is found guilty during a civil trial.
In a civil trial you can be found liable, which is not the same thing.
You are mixing civil and criminal law. Presumption of innocence is only a thing in criminal law as only in criminal law there is a presecution and only in criminal law are they trying to prove guilt.
Balance of probablites is a thing in civil law where one person sues another for breach of contract for example and you are trying to figure out if the contract was fulfilled or not, there is no guilt involved.
TL;DR — they’re used in two completely different cases. They wouldn’t be used in the same case ever — you’d always pick one.
Suppose you suspect someone drives drunk. You might be right, you might be wrong.
What you *do* with that suspicion depends on how bad it would be
* to think they do it when they don’t, and
* to think they don’t do it when they do.
In some situations, it’s really important to be *very sure* before we treat them as guilty. Eg, if they’re going to jail for it – our justice system is *very wary* of sending innocent people to jail. The idea of “innocent until proven guilty” comes from this.
In other situations, it’s important to be *very sure* before we treat them as innocent: eg, if we’re hiring them as a long haul truck driver.
In other situations, both mistakes are about equally bad: we want to take action on the thing that’s *more likely* to be true. Eg, if they’re suing someone who got them fired by spreading rumours about them driving drunk. The idea of “balance of probabilities” comes from this.
You’re confusing the burden of proof and the standard of proof.
The presumption of innocence is a burden of proof. It dictates who has to prove their case in court. If both parties show up with no evidence and no arguments, the accused goes free. If the prosecution wants a different outcome, they have the burden of proving it. It doesn’t say anything about what you have to prove or how convincing you have to be, it’s just the default outcome of the trial.
The balance of probabilities is a standard of proof. It dictates how convincing the evidence has to be to satisfy the burden. Also, incidentally, the standard of proof in criminal cases is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which is much higher than “balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities is the typical standard in civil cases, where you want the court to side with whoever seems more likely to be in the right.
Latest Answers