undefined | Better HN

0 pointsindymike3y ago0 comments

>This is civil law, not criminal. Presumption of innocence doesn’t apply.

If the court is so sure that the plaintiff will prevail, why even have a trial? The answer is that until the court rules, barring 100% certainty of the plaintiff prevailing, you have to wait for the court's deliberation or you have only oppression and no justice at all. Both sides must have a chance to make their case.

0 comments

IfOnlyYouKnew3y ago

In civil law, the roles of plaintiff and defendant are largely interchangeable. If you order food and don't like it, the restaurant might sue you for payment. Or you need to sue the restaurant if you already paid. It's rather arbitrary, being only based on the order of the exchange of food and money.

In any case, take it up the law, because it is as I said: the burden of proof is different, its "preponderance of the evidence", i. e. 50%.

indymikeOP3y ago

You are talking punish first, then have a trial later. Regardless of the rules of evidence, or who is suing who, the reason we have courts and trials is to allow both sides to be heard, and a decision be made on who violated the law, and then on how to remedy it. You cannot have justice if one side is not heard, or is put out of business before getting to make their case.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsindymike3y ago0 comments

>This is civil law, not criminal. Presumption of innocence doesn’t apply.

0 comments

IfOnlyYouKnew3y ago

In any case, take it up the law, because it is as I said: the burden of proof is different, its "preponderance of the evidence", i. e. 50%.

indymikeOP3y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse