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 (73904)	9/4/2003 8:17:26 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I dunno, Chris, what are we talking about? I came into the argument late, somebody pinged me, I don't really know what ya'll are arguing about. There's legal realism, but that doesn't really trump reality, even for lawyers. We know that something can be the functional equivalent to something else, but that doesn't make them the same. For example, you can have your police records and court records expunged if you are acquitted, nolle prossed, or receive an absolute pardon. But a nolle prosse isn't really the same thing as an acquittal. In Va., can't remember off the top of my head if the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor is one year or two, I think it's one. But there's no statute of limitations for murder. So if a murder charge is nolle prossed, that doesn't mean that the person skates forever. Acquittal, however, does, for most purposes. But, for a cop, who's seen a lot of bad guys skate on technicalities, a nolle prosse and an acquittal mean nothing. Same, in my experience, with prosecutors, and, to a lesser extent with judges and criminal defense attorneys. If you're looking at a rap sheet with a dozen or two acquittals and nolle prosses, no way you're going to think the guy was just unlucky. You're going to think he is the luckiest guilty sumbitch on the planet.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (73904)	9/4/2003 9:01:59 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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.