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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (73729)8/30/2003 7:07:56 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
If you are using innocent and guilty in a non-legal sense, you are correct.

If you are using them in a legal sense, which is the context in which the discussion was taking place, you are not correct.



To: TimF who wrote (73729)8/30/2003 7:10:11 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Let me expand on my earlier post.

You can say, often of a young girl, tht she is sweet an innocent. Non-legal usage.

You can say of a person that he or she is guilty of rude behavior, which is obviously not a crime, so the term is not used in a legal context.

But in a legal context, a person who is found not guilty of a specific crime is innocent of that crime. Period.



To: TimF who wrote (73729)8/30/2003 7:16:51 PM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 82486
 
I'm with you. Someone found "not guilty" may be innocent or may simply not be found guilty. If the justice system wanted it to be otherwise, they would have the finding read "innocent" rather than "not guilty." When people are actually proven innocent during a trial, assuming that happens outside Perry Mason stories, the matter generally wouldn't go to the jury for a finding, the case would merely be dismissed.