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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (17234)	12/4/1998 4:25:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<< The court does not declare any one "not innocent" when a verdict of "not guilty" is reached any more than it declares them "innocent." The court is directed to opperate on the presumption of innocense until Guilt is proven. If Guilt can not be established the only other "legal" verdict is "Not Guilty" based on the evidence available to the court. You have stated your self the possibililities that do not add up to innocence.>>> One more time Einstein... The state has the burden of proof NOT the defendent. He is presumed innocent and there is nothing to declare. It's established BEFORE he ever walks into the courtroom. Now once again please point out where in the "legal system" (you know that unknown entity you keep citing) it indicates that a verdict of "not guilty" does not mean innocent. <<<My point has been only that the legal system does not simplify it to that extent, for the reasons we've both recognized.>>> The reason is that there is nothing to specify. Innocence is recognized as God given and uncorruptible. Until it can be proven otherwise that's the end of it. If you want to discuss it from a philosophical perspective that's fine but stop making the erroneous conclusion that "not guilty" does not equal innocence because in legal terms it does.