please respond to Wendy with 200 words
Criminal offenses are defined in the penal code by individual elements because each case needs clarity, fairness, and consistency. Having different types of elements also will help determine the kind of punishment a person should get. A presumption is an act or an idea that can be seen as the truth. The criminal law tries to use the trust method in the system, to allow society to tell the truth during their case. This is necessary when cases that do not have any or enough evidence will go based on what they are being told. This also helps with making a decision, based on common sense or last experiences.
A rebuttable presumption can prove a person’s innocence with their evidence or witnesses. I see rebuttable more as a fact check in this case. If someone has evidence against a person, the accused can have evidence that disproves it. An example that helped me understand this was a mother who had a baby and stated that her husband is the father. However, the father knows other men who will testify against the mother stating they may be the father of the baby. This will help disprove the mother’s theory that her husband may or may not be the child’s father.
An irrebuttable presumption is direct evidence that cannot be disproven; it’s hard to disprove that someone did not commit the crime without intention. Cases like these will tend to have a beyond of reasonable doubt. An example of this is a husband who may have murdered his wife which he loved dearly. A case like this may not be easy to solve if there is no proof of them ever having any marital issues and only has proof of loving his wife. Even with a party statement about their marriage, the case can still be lost.
A permissive presumption is when a jury can make their own decision regardless of what the evidence states. A situation like this can be a person purchasing a car without ever getting the pink slip. The person who purchased the car may have been lied to about losing the pink slip, not knowing the car was stolen. The jury can decide whether the person is guilty of purchasing a stolen car that he may or may not have known was stolen. Regardless of what evidence may have been used in court, in the end, it would all depend on the jury.