SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: sea_biscuit who wrote (17204)12/4/1998 2:11:00 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) of 67261
 
That wasn't nice Dipy. I simply said they were not proven innocent. It's not "my standards," it's the set up of the justice system. The person may actually be innocent of the crime. They often are when they are found "not guilty." The court doesn't declare them innocent because the court doesn't try to prove innocence it tries to prove guilt. The defense tries to keep that from happening. If it can't prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, then the only other option the court has is "not guilty." What I was pointing out is that "not guilty" and "innocent" are not the same thing. A person may be innocent and get a "not guilty" ruling. A person may also be guilty but the court couldn't prove it with the evidence presented by the prosecuter, so the courts declaration (not mine) is not guilty.

Its ok with me if you want to make "not guilty" equal to "innocent" in your own mind. That is not our legal system however.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News