Consider the extent to which burden of proofs conflict with the Essay

Consider the extent to which burden of proofs conflict with the presumption of innocence in English Law - Essay Example In English Law, the judges use legal precedent and their common sense to formulate the laws. In England, it is possible to amend or revoke the English common law by the Parliament. A few of the oldest English laws which still exist today include the Distress Act of 1267 and a few sections of the Magna Carta of 1215. W. M. Geldart( p.7, 1918) states We commonly speak both of law and laws—the English Law, or the Laws of England ; and these terms, though not used with precision, point to two different aspects under which legal science may be approached. The laws of a country are thought of as separate, distinct, individual rules; the law of a country, however much we may analyze it into separate rules, is something more than the mere sum of such rules. It is rather a whole, a system which orders our conduct ; in which the separate rules have their place and their relation to each other and to the whole ; which is never completely exhausted by any analysis, however far the analysi s may be pushed, and however much the analysis may be necessary to our understanding of the whole. The Presumption of Innocence and the Burden of Proof are two very important laws which belong to the English Law. The Presumption of Innocence is the right that an accused gets in most modern countries of the world. Hence, until the persecution can gather further evidence to prove that the accused is guilty, the accused will be deemed as innocent. The prosecution on the other hand has a job which directly conflicts with the ‘Presumption of innocence’. Their job is to obtain the ‘The Burden of Proof’. So the proof that the prosecution needs to gather has to be convincing enough. This would make the jury pronounce that the accused is guilty without any doubt. But if there are certain doubts, the accused will be acquitted. The Presumption of Innocence is very similar to the Latin principle ‘Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat’, hence many consider it to be based on this