Author Topic: Abduction ... what is the evidence ?  (Read 48385 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Abduction ... what is the evidence ?
« Reply #120 on: April 10, 2013, 07:35:36 AM »
My own experience of the Spanish, Italian and Portuguese prosecution authorities is that if in doubt...PROSECUTE.



That's interesting John

Do you feel able to share  ?  ...  what experience of Spanish, Italian and Portuguese prosecution authorities do you have ?

Most of continental European countries worked a system of law based on Roman/ Napoleonic Law not Common Law. This affects attitudes in police and justice operations.

The common law system is based on scepticism and led to an ethic that included presumption of innocence, habeus corpus, individua freedom being more important than the dominance of the state. It also includes policing by consent.

The continental system is based on dominance by the state which made individual rights subservient to the state. Policing was by coercion.

The last 70 years have seen considerable moves towards a common law ethic by continental countries but there is a hangover of attitudes. This is especially apparent in those countries who were ruled by totalitarian ( fascist and state socialist- communist) countries).

Police procedures in those states tend to be more coercive, less by consent and less skeptical.

Offline Luz

Re: Abduction ... what is the evidence ?
« Reply #121 on: April 10, 2013, 04:35:07 PM »
In Portugal the principle is if in doubt dismiss/ archive/ acquit. That is what happened with the Mccs. No Judge of the Public Ministry will ever risk taking a case to court unless they have full proof to condemn a person/persons.

Unfortunately that's why we have so many criminals playing as innocent just because there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction.

debunker

  • Guest
Re: Abduction ... what is the evidence ?
« Reply #122 on: April 10, 2013, 05:30:13 PM »
In Portugal the principle is if in doubt dismiss/ archive/ acquit. That is what happened with the Mccs. No Judge of the Public Ministry will ever risk taking a case to court unless they have full proof to condemn a person/persons.

Unfortunately that's why we have so many criminals playing as innocent just because there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction.

Your reaction is typical of someone educated in a Napoleonic Law Country. A person without enough evidence to convict is innocent in the eyes of the law.

I suspect the test is what is used in the UK- better than 50% chance of a conviction. If people were regualrly prosecuted with less than 50% chance, that would be oppressive.