Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: The Philosopher who wrote (73904)	9/4/2003 9:01:59 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) of 82486

Sigh...you just don't get it. A "presumption" of innocence is not the same as a "finding" of innocence. The finding is either guilty or NOT guilty. It is not "guilty" versus "innocent" because there is a recognition that there is a difference between the proven and the unproven. A person is not "proved" innocent: he is "proved" not guilty. A person who has not been proved guilty may still be so. The lack of a guilty finding does not "PROVE" innocence. Because a "not guilty" person has not been "proved" innocent, the law views them as "not guilty". There is a presumption of innocence not a finding. The law does not attempt to prove innocence. A person is presumed innocent because we hold a moral bias in favour of an abundance of caution in preventing any innocent person from violation by the State. A "not guilty" person is not necessarily an innocent person. They have not been found innocent as in "proved" innocent. Instead, they have been "proved" NOT GUILTY. They simply enjoy a presumption which may or may not reflect the truth. Of course you will not understand any of this, and if you do you will not admit to it. You will probably just make a childish response.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next