Yes, as others have said. However, this is a legitimate question, because in these specific cases, the burden of proof tends to be on the side of the defendant who needs to prove they didn't harm their child. That's obviously impossible, and probably unconstitutional.
When medical experts claim they're 100% confident that this child was violently shaken at this specific time, and that you were the only person with the child at that time, how can you defend yourself when you haven't done anything? There's nothing you could ever do to convince courts that your word has more value than the confidence of highly reputable experts with decades of experience.
This is an instance where the prosecution's case relies on the confidence in medical authorities, and where it is extremely hard to challenge it as the subject is so difficult on a scientific and technical level. In the US and other adversarial jurisdictions, you see an incredible level of technicality during oral debates, with extensive and long-running discussions around extremely obscure points related to the anatomy, physiology, and pathology of the infant nervous system in highly specific pathological situations, where infants frequently suffer from multiple rare medical conditions or risk factors. Few people in the world have the required expertise, and even fewer accept to testify in courts! There's also an obvious financial imbalance between the State and the defendant.
In inquisitorial jurisdictions like France, this is even worse as there's basically no system in place to challenge the views of the State's experts.
So, yes, litigating these cases is extraordinarily challenging because the only way to prove the defendant's innocence is to challenge the opinion of overly assertive medical experts by digging into highly difficult (and multidisciplinary) science.
Is that a serious question? Yes, the French justice system is based on a presumption of innocence, just like any other functioning democratic nation. It is a basic human right under the UN charter after all.
You say that, but this doesn't seem like presumption of innocence. A country with a presumption of innocence doesn't take your child away from you without trial.
A presumption of innocence doesn't mean that a trial is needed before (what are supposed to be) basic safety measures.
Judges can issue preliminary injunctions before trial in all places in the world. A justice system that can't take any coercive action until the end of a trial would simply not function.
In particular though, cases like this aren't even related to the presumption of innocence. The state believes that the child has suffered harm, so a judge takes them in protective custody. Who is harming the child remains to be determined, but taking the child into custody is supposed to protect the child immediately.
Of course, this can be, like in this case, wrongly applied to disastrous effects. But it has also saved many children from abusive parents, where leaving them without state protection for years while the trial advances would have scarred them permanently or killed them.
I'm willing to bet that almost all countries have a different standard of proof for taking a child away than for criminal trial, and none will wait for the outcome of a trial to do this.
There are complications when immediate danger needs to be avoided. E.g., the system prefers to take away children preventively in serious cases rather than leaving them in a dangerous environment. Which is sometimes justified, and sometimes not. The idea in this case is that it is easier to correct a mistake by restoring custody than by reviving a dead child.
A bit like temporary restraining orders pending trial in the US.
Yes, as others have said. However, this is a legitimate question, because in these specific cases, the burden of proof tends to be on the side of the defendant who needs to prove they didn't harm their child. That's obviously impossible, and probably unconstitutional.
When medical experts claim they're 100% confident that this child was violently shaken at this specific time, and that you were the only person with the child at that time, how can you defend yourself when you haven't done anything? There's nothing you could ever do to convince courts that your word has more value than the confidence of highly reputable experts with decades of experience.
This is an instance where the prosecution's case relies on the confidence in medical authorities, and where it is extremely hard to challenge it as the subject is so difficult on a scientific and technical level. In the US and other adversarial jurisdictions, you see an incredible level of technicality during oral debates, with extensive and long-running discussions around extremely obscure points related to the anatomy, physiology, and pathology of the infant nervous system in highly specific pathological situations, where infants frequently suffer from multiple rare medical conditions or risk factors. Few people in the world have the required expertise, and even fewer accept to testify in courts! There's also an obvious financial imbalance between the State and the defendant.
In inquisitorial jurisdictions like France, this is even worse as there's basically no system in place to challenge the views of the State's experts.
So, yes, litigating these cases is extraordinarily challenging because the only way to prove the defendant's innocence is to challenge the opinion of overly assertive medical experts by digging into highly difficult (and multidisciplinary) science.
Is that a serious question? Yes, the French justice system is based on a presumption of innocence, just like any other functioning democratic nation. It is a basic human right under the UN charter after all.
You say that, but this doesn't seem like presumption of innocence. A country with a presumption of innocence doesn't take your child away from you without trial.
A presumption of innocence doesn't mean that a trial is needed before (what are supposed to be) basic safety measures.
Judges can issue preliminary injunctions before trial in all places in the world. A justice system that can't take any coercive action until the end of a trial would simply not function.
In particular though, cases like this aren't even related to the presumption of innocence. The state believes that the child has suffered harm, so a judge takes them in protective custody. Who is harming the child remains to be determined, but taking the child into custody is supposed to protect the child immediately.
Of course, this can be, like in this case, wrongly applied to disastrous effects. But it has also saved many children from abusive parents, where leaving them without state protection for years while the trial advances would have scarred them permanently or killed them.
3 replies →
I'm willing to bet that almost all countries have a different standard of proof for taking a child away than for criminal trial, and none will wait for the outcome of a trial to do this.
1 reply →
Pre-trial detention is a thing pretty much everywhere despite literally locking innocent people up before a trial.
2 replies →
There are complications when immediate danger needs to be avoided. E.g., the system prefers to take away children preventively in serious cases rather than leaving them in a dangerous environment. Which is sometimes justified, and sometimes not. The idea in this case is that it is easier to correct a mistake by restoring custody than by reviving a dead child.
A bit like temporary restraining orders pending trial in the US.