The Canadian Legal System

[MrMazda]

So according to the laws in Canada, an accused person is allegedly supposed to be considered "innocent until proven guilty", however I believe this to be a myth. All it takes is ONE person to step forward with an allegation that holds absolutely NO truth to it to get you arrested, sent to jail, and then have the next 3+ years of your life forever fucked up and taken away from you. Here's the worst part… Because of a biased jury, it is very well possible that I could end up going back to jail over something that I didn't do. The reason is quite simple... The reality is that in today's world, it is guilty until proven innocent. Check it out:

Here's the reference to the condensed "Reader's Digest" version of how things went down in court at the trial:
hxxp://www.aidsactionnow.org/?p=1057

And now, for the piece to make things even more "heated"... The petition. PLEASE!! If you're reading this, PLEASE sign it! It's about time that we all stood up for human rights. Here's the petition that I created as the result of the trial:
hxxp://www.change.org/petitions/the-government-of-canada-ban-the-use-of-the-criminal-code-for-prosecuting-an-sti

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!!! If you're reading this, SIGN THE PETITION!! I beg of you!

[Spintendo]

@MrMazda:

an accused person is allegedly supposed to be considered "innocent until proven guilty"

The 'innocence' as used in innocent until proven guilty should be seen as an adverb (a person's status during trial) and not as an adjective (a person's ultimate state of being as innocent of any crime). As an adverb, the presumption of innocence requires that any person who makes an allegation be the one responsible for 'proving' it. That same presumption protects the person who is denying an allegation from having to 'prove' anything, since the presumption lays with them.

@MrMazda:

Because of a biased jury, it is very well possible that I could end up going back to jail"

A bench trial may have been the better choice (I know, I know, hindsight is always 20/20)…. but I agree with you that the details of this case were just too complex and multifaceted for a group of lay person's to decide.

[Spintendo]

@Spintendo:

A bench trial may have been the better choice

Actually no trial would have been the better choice. This is at best a civil tort, and not a criminal matter.

[Dax]

I signed the petition and I'll try to get others to sign it.
BTW, it's no biggie and I don't know if there's something that can be done now, but there's a typo in the petition. In the 8th line the word "changes" should have been "charges".

[leatherbear]

Signed and comment left.


[thekingdom]

The presumption of innocence doesn't mean you get to wander free until proven guilty, and I feel like that's a common misconception.

What it actually refers to is the legal standard of proof in criminal cases. On the day of your trial, the judge begins with the presumption that you are 0% guilty, and it is the Crown's duty to bring forth evidence that increases your likelihood of guilt until the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of your guilt. This is in contrast to the legal standard of proof in civil cases, where the judge basically begins 50% in favour of each party, and the parties must bring forth evidence to tip the scale in their favour.

The presumption of innocence certainly does not mean that the accused can't be held in jail until the day of their trial, nor that they won't suffer any damage to their reputation.

[raphjd]

@thekingdom:

The presumption of innocence doesn't mean you get to wander free until proven guilty, and I feel like that's a common misconception.

…...............

The presumption of innocence certainly does not mean that the accused can't be held in jail until the day of their trial, nor that they won't suffer any damage to their reputation.

Very true.

There are lots of innocent people destroyed because they have to pay for their legal council.  Then of course there's the whole "there's no smoke without fire" public perception of crime suspects.