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
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.
Latest Answers