Hi! Welcome to "Dusty Phrases." You will find a phrase below, in one ancient language or another, along with its English translation. You may also find the power to inspire your friends or provoke dread among your enemies.
For other examples, visit HERE:
_____________________________
Latin:
In dubio pro reo
English:
[when] in doubt, rule for the accused
This Latin phrase represents an ancient line of thought regarding criminal law. Society could not withstand for long any government possessing the freedom to accuse its citizens, wantonly and without sufficient proof, of crimes. Eventually the people would rebel. It was thus for the good of those in power to provide protections for those outside of power. Of course, time also saw arguments over whether that doubt had to be reasonable, or not, with the prevailing view being that it does (the "any doubt whatsoever" standard being so broad that it would not only set the wrongly accused free, but also the rightfully accused and thus bring about chaos.)
Thus the principle protects against government witch hunts and limiting "doubt" to that which is reasonable protects against criminal anarchy.
What is the history of the legal principle?
via wiki:
The principle of in dubio pro reo (Latin for "[when] in doubt, rule for the accused") means that a defendant may not be convicted by the court when doubts about their guilt remain.
The rule of lenity is the doctrine that ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the more lenient punishment.
To resolve all doubts in favour of the accused is in consonance with the principle of presumption of innocence.
Origin
The main principle in the sentence was part of Aristotle's interpretation of the law and shaped the Roman law: Favorabiliores rei potius quam actores habentur (Digest of Justinian I, D.50.17.125), meaning "The condition of the defendant is to be favored rather than that of the plaintiff." However, the phrase was not spelled out word for word until the Milanese jurist Egidio Bossi (1487–1546) related it in his treatises.
National peculiarities
In German law, the principle is not codified but has constitutional status and is derived from Article 103(2) of the Basic Law, Article 6 of the ECHR, and Section 261 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The common use of the phrase in the German legal tradition was documented in 1631 by Friedrich Spee von Langenfeld.
In Canadian law, the leading case establishing how to decide criminal cases where the guilt of the accused depends on contradictory witness accounts is R. v. W.(D.) (1991).
No comments:
Post a Comment