If you are a man, probably you've had this commonplace little experience in life. When you take the metro/subway and you're waiting for the train on a passenger platform, you absentmindedly or unawarely move a little too close to a woman and stand there. The woman subtly adjusts the position of her handbag on her shoulder and makes sure that it's safe from your possible fetching or something.
See, the woman can have Reasonable Doubt that you would possibly steal her purse or something, yet you have the presumed innocence as stated in the legal principle of Presumption of Innocence. So the train finally arrives, and you two step onto it and then you move away from the woman which possessed a pinch of Reasonable Doubt about your behavior a moment ago. And this episode of Presumption of Innocence finishes.
You see, this whole notion of Presumption of Innocence intrigues me. There's a catch though. If "the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies" (see the first paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence ), why do some defendants in some legal cases have to provide alibis to the courts which they are judged in?
See, the woman can have Reasonable Doubt that you would possibly steal her purse or something, yet you have the presumed innocence as stated in the legal principle of Presumption of Innocence. So the train finally arrives, and you two step onto it and then you move away from the woman which possessed a pinch of Reasonable Doubt about your behavior a moment ago. And this episode of Presumption of Innocence finishes.
You see, this whole notion of Presumption of Innocence intrigues me. There's a catch though. If "the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies" (see the first paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence ), why do some defendants in some legal cases have to provide alibis to the courts which they are judged in?