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
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.
Latest Answers