Overview
please respond to Nathan with 150 words
It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and as such, the defendant should not be obligated to present a “failure of proof” defense. This defence is derived from the provision that if the prosecution has not disproved its case then the accused must be taken to be innocent. It is for this reason, that where guilt is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant cannot be expected to prove his innocence, given the principle that every person is innocent until proven otherwise.
Although I do agree that the defendant does not have to prove that he is innocent he ought to be able to argue or produce evidence that he or she could not have committed the crime. Justice, in aim of a conviction, can only occur if the judge and the members of the jury understand the case as much as possible. It would put doubt concerning the defendant’s involvement, and put pressure on the prosecution so that they cannot easily convict the defendant. But when there is a lot of disparity or a hole in the alibi offered by the defendant, this may warrant suspicion and ante up the case against the defendant.