I am sorry, but I must disagree with certain parts of this post (specifically, point 3). In the USA, the burden of proof remains on the prosecutor despite the lack of evidence "proving" the innocence of the accused. Unless and until convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (in a criminal case), a jury must acknowledge the innocence of the defendant. Case in point, the 5th Amendment was explicitly designed to protect the rights of innocents who are accused (which is why you should never ever talk to law enforcement without a lawyer, even as a "witness"- it
will be used against you).
Disagree, and here is why.
#3. "That's not really how the burden of proof works... Disproving things is an impracticality." This is usually the case for religious, philosophical, or mythological debate, not in the real world. For example in a police investigation:
Detective: We think you killed that girl
Suspect: you will have to prove it
Detective: Where were you Thursday night between 6:00 pm and 8 pm
The burden of proof is now on the suspect to disprove the detective by citing evidence that they were somewhere that was not the crime scene. The detective does not have to prove that the suspect was at the crime scene, the suspect must now prove they were not. The suspect could make the claim "It's up to you to prove I was there", but in front of a jury if the suspect cannot disprove the theory that they were at the crime scene, the jury has a good chance of convicting. In real world scenario's people often must disprove a claim.
In this case, the suspect is still to be regarded as innocent, and your line above: "The suspect could make the claim "It's up to you to prove I was there." is in fact true and correct- the prosecution must
still, absolutely, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove that the suspect did indeed commit the crime, with actual evidence[/i], or else the jury is
required to find the suspect to be innocent.
NO further effort by the accused is necessary (granted, in the real world, this does not always hold true, but the efforts of the defense are needed because the accused may in fact be guilty (system working as intended), or the suspect needs to prove the prosecution has committed errors either willful, or malignant, or both (flaws in the operations of the system).
Otherwise, all the prosecution would need is to fling accusations, and then sit back and demand "evidence" of innocence.
Granted, there are a lot of problems when actual guilty parties evade justice under this rule of law, but I chalk that up to the problems of human nature- the system was designed in an attempt to hold back the excesses so frequent under, say, the Napoleonic Code.
