Question

Is punishment or retribution without proper application of a defence intrinsically unjust? If you won't do what the defendent says will prove his innocence, then is it unfair punishment even if you are right that he is guilty?

In the example I am thinking of, Smith is being taken to court for something he has an alibi for. Smith tried to prove the alibi was sound, but failed to do so right away, and is now being denied any further opportunity to show where he was and at what time. Leaving aside his innocence (he assures us he is innocent), is this unjust or unfair?

Does this link to the idea of innocent until proven guilty? And is punishment ever ok if you have not proven guilt?

Answer 1

In the example provided, the denial of the opportunity to prove the alibi can be seen as unfair and unjust. The principle of innocent until proven guilty is relevant in this situation.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the example you mentioned, where Smith is being taken to court for a crime he claims he did not commit, the denial of further opportunity to prove his alibi can be seen as unfair and unjust. This is because in a fair judicial system, the accused should have the right to present evidence in their defense.

This relates to the idea of innocent until proven guilty, which is a fundamental principle in criminal law. It means that a person should not be punished unless their guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.