Articles
| Open Access |
DOI: BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THESE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES IN ANGLO-SAXON CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS
Malikabonu ABDULLAEVA , PhD, Law Enforcement Academy of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, UzbekistanAbstract
This paper provides a comprehensive review of two fundamental principles in Anglo-Saxon criminal justice systems: the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence. These principles form the bedrock of fair trial rights and are crucial to ensuring justice in criminal proceedings. Through an extensive analysis of legal scholarship, case law, and comparative studies, this research examines the historical development, theoretical underpinnings, and practical applications of these principles in various Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. The paper also explores contemporary challenges to these principles, such as terrorism legislation and the rise of administrative penalties, and offers recommendations for preserving their integrity in modern criminal justice systems.
Keywords
Burden of proof, presumption of innocence, criminal justice
References
Ashworth, A. (2006). Four threats to the presumption of innocence. South African Law Journal, 123(1), 63-97.
Beccaria, C. (1764). On Crimes and Punishments. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Blackstone, W. (1765). Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dworkin, R. (1985). A Matter of Principle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ip, J. (2013). The reform of counterterrorism stop and search after Gillan v United Kingdom. Human Rights Law Review, 13(4), 729-760.
Kerr, O. S. (2018). Compelled Decryption and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. Texas Law Review, 97, 767.
Langbein, J. H. (2003). The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laudan, L. (2006). Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, A., McGarrity, N., & Williams, G. (2015). Inside Australia's Anti-Terrorism Laws and Trials. Sydney: NewSouth Publishing.
Mann, K. (1992). Punitive civil sanctions: The middleground between criminal and civil law. Yale Law Journal, 101(8), 1795-1873.
Pennington, K. (2003). Innocent Until Proven Guilty: The Origins of a Legal Maxim. Jurist, 63, 106-124.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Redmayne, M. (2007). Rethinking the privilege against self-incrimination. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 27(2), 209-232.
Roach, K. (2011). The 9/11 Effect: Comparative Counter-Terrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schabas, W. A. (2010). The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Summers, S. J. (2007). Fair Trials: The European Criminal Procedural Tradition and the European Court of Human Rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Thayer, J. B. (1898). A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown.
Ullman-Margalit, E. (1983). On presumption. The Journal of Philosophy, 80(3), 143-163.
Article Statistics
Downloads
Copyright License
Copyright (c) 2024 Malikabonu ABDULLAEVA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.