Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (73863)	9/4/2003 12:13:22 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"You don't plead innocent because you ARE innocent" FALSE. You are "PRESUMED" innocent. There is a difference between presumption and actuality. It is a difference you fail to grasp. Perhaps some of your fellows can educate you on the matter...

To: The Philosopher who wrote (73863)	9/4/2003 10:40:40 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

No one would be foolish enough to equate acquittal with actual innocence. Otherwise there would not be learned papers on jury nullification, where the facts mandate conviction, but the jury refuses to convict, or on the baneful effects of the exclusionary rule in sacrificing substantive justice to procedural fairness. You are right, once acquitted, for all intents and purposes before the law, in relation to that crime, you are innocent, and double jeopardy forbids another trial. However, one can be taken to civil court and found liable for a tort action on same evidence, since the standard is "preponderance of evidence" rather than "reasonable doubt". In that case, the way to interpret the actions of the court is to say that you probably did it, but that there is enough uncertainty to shield you from the full rigor of the law........