Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
By "anti trial" I meant a trial where the "defendant" is trying to prove his guilt rather than innocence. As to "effectively implemented" my definition would be that something like more than a dozen innocents are set free while fewer than 100 guilty are. I obviously think that results would be far better but even what I wrote would be immoral to turn down.
The confessor is trying to prove his guilt in a court proceeding, presumably before a jury. I assume that the confessor has to prove his guilt by whatever standard of proof. In other words, he has the burden of persuasion. It isn't up to the other side to prove that the confessor is not guilty. Is all of that correct?
Who is acting as the confessor's lawyer? Prosecutors obviously can't be expected to perform this duty. Few confessors can be expected to pay for private attorneys. I guess that public defenders would act as the confessor's attorney. Who is representing the other side? Prosecutors?
Does the confessor have the burden of proving that he did not collude with the convicted man? I guess that burden would fall on prosecutors.
What will the jury be instructed is sufficient evidence on which to base a "the confessor is guilty" verdict? Specifically, can the jury base its verdict solely on the confession of the confessor, or does the confessor have the burden to come forward with physical evidence that corroborates his guilt? It's strange, right, because a confession by the defendant is game over in the typical criminal context. It's extremely persuasive to the jury because most people on juries assume that they would never confess to a crime that they did not commit. But the incentives for the confessor are very different in this sort of proceeding.
Can the convicted perp be forced to testify in the confessor's criminal proceeding?
Does the convicted man automatically go free if the jury finds that the confessor is guilty? What happens if the prosecutors believe, based on the evidence proffered by the confessor, that both the confessor and the convicted man were involved in the crime? Does the confessor have the burden of proving that the convicted person is innocent? For example, imagine that a man is convicted of murder. Five years later, the widow of the murder victim comes forward with convincing evidence that (i) she was was having an affair with the convicted man; and (ii) she helped the convicted man plan the murder and she knowingly gave the convicted man critical information that allowed him to successfully carry out the murder.
This woman is definitely guilty of murder. But in this scenario, surely the convicted man does not get released.