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.
Latest Answers