China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The Court Process and Procedures
Published in Thomas D. Schneid, Safety Law, 2018
Civil and criminal actions have significantly different “burden of proof.” Please remember that civil actions are usually concerned about money, while criminal actions involve the taking of freedom from an individual. Thus, the burden of proof is far greater in criminal actions than civil actions. In criminal cases, the government (or prosecution) must prove each and every element of the crime “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The defendant is not required to testify, and the defendant is not required to prove his/her innocence. In a civil case, the burden of proof is by the “preponderance of the evidence” and a majority rule of the jury. Thus, the burden of proof is far greater in a criminal trial than a civil trial.
Criminal Law
Published in Ron Bartsch, International Aviation Law, 2018
Regardless of the system of law, the burden of proof in the majority of cases lies on the prosecution, meaning it is their obligation to prove that the accused is guilty of the offence. There are, however, some offences which reverse this onus of proof onto the defendant, such as drug possession offences, as seen in the High Court of Australia case of He Kaw Teh.
Emergence of Artificial Intelligence and Its Legal Impact
Published in Utpal Chakraborty, Amit Banerjee, Jayanta Kumar Saha, Niloy Sarkar, Chinmay Chakraborty, Artificial Intelligence and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, 2022
Generally, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. This rule has exception in case of failure of responsibility or wrongdoer case. If the negligent act itself is very obvious, the maxim “the thing speaks for itself” will apply and the inventor; the programmer; or the company will have to prove that the loss was not caused due to failure on its part.
‘Conscientious objection’ and canon law
Published in The New Bioethics, 2021
‘Conscientious objection’ has been a stance more associated with a refusal to take part in or actively support military action. However, with changes in medical procedures and societal perceptions, and the promotion of human rights, ‘conscientious objection’ is invoked increasingly from healthcare professionals who do not want to be involved in procedures such as terminations of pregnancies or where patients are helped to die through physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. The latter has not been legalized in the United Kingdom, though it has been in various countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Canada. However, abortions under certain conditions have been allowed since the Abortion Act was enacted in 1967. The Act contained a ‘conscience clause’ which stipulated that ‘no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection’ (1967, c.4). It continues: ‘in any legal proceedings the burden of proof shall rest on the person claiming to rely on it’.