3360 of 62460 members online
Coffee Machines 720 GetFrank GymJunkie Menu Mania Snow Surf Varsity

Forgot Your Password? Create Account
[quote]
As requested bg Razz

quote:

/forgive me for continuing the presumption of innocence hijack but I promise this is the last word on it as I'm sure once he reads this, Yakky will see the light Razz

'Presumption of innocence' is a phrase used by the law to describe a host of rules designed to protect the citizen from the potential for arbitrary, oppressive and unfair conduct by the state and ensure that everyone entering the criminal justice system gets equal and fair treatment. It is definitely not a categorical evaluation of the individual's innocence (questions of 'true' innocence or 'true' guilt are for God or the flying spaghetti monster). The law is not retarded, it knows that many who come before the court are not innocent; but it wants to ensure that the system is fair to them so it 'presumes them to be innocent', in other words, entitles them to all the same rights and protections that everyone else is entitled to. This is why the verdict of NG is not the same as innocent.

(If you don't agree Yakky, start a thread in CA about presumption of innocence and we'll thrash this out properly Pink Winky


So umm, where's the part where you say anything that is contrary to what I've already said, except the moot itself? Razz You just explicitly admitted that the law "presumes them to be innocent". It doesn't matter why it does it, here, only that it does.

- FACT: They are presumed innocent when they walk in
- FACT: Unless they leave with anything other than a guilty verdict, they are still presumed innocent

So where there is 100% correlation (between not guilty verdicts and presumption of innocence), there is zero distinction to be made. Logically, a not-guilty verdict is a verdict of innocence.
[quote]
The law is not concerned with innocence and guilt proper. Its concerned with 'fair and equal protection and treatment of citizens' (aka presumption of innocence) and 'guilt BRD'

By presuming you innocent, the law does not say that you are innocent or that it thinks that you are innocent. All it says is that you are entitled to a set of rights and protections that all who are entering the criminal justice process are entitled to, and we call this 'a presumption of innocence' because its a cute sound-byte which nicely encapsulates all those protections that are put in place by the system.

NG verdict is simply a return to the 'presumption of innocence' entitlement ie your entitlement to the rights and protections held by all those who enter the criminal justice system.

If anything the phrase is a misnomer.
[quote]
Makes sense, she knows her law. Interesting topic.
[quote]
I've already cleared this confusion up ffs! Mad Razz

innocent vs. guilty = a question of ontology (what actually happened)

not guilty vs guilty = a question of epistemology (how certain can the jury be that X happened?)