Citation

Tadros V. Crim. Law Philos. 2014; 8(2): 449-467.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s11572-013-9253-6

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This article clarifies and further defends the view that the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, protected by Article 6(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights has implications for the substantive law. It is shown that a 'purely procedural' conception of the presumption of innocence has absurd implications for the nature of the right. Objections to the moderate substantive view defended are considered, including the acceptability of male prohibits offences, the difficulty of ascertaining intentions of legislatures and the proper role of prosecutorial discretion. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

Language: en

Keywords

Assisted suicide; Human rights; Prosecutorial discretion; Legislative intentions; Mala prohibits; Overcriminalization; Presumption of innocence; Sexual offences