I N D I C T E D

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by DinoTriz2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It doesn't matter if he wasn't totally exonerated. Prosecution is supposed to find someone guilty of something, not innocent.

If you can't find guilt, then the person is assumed innocent.

Proving a negative is near impossible.

Not sure why so many people get hung up on that fact.

It's guilty or not guilty. It's not guilty or innocent. Hope this helps.

[DinoTriz2]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's guilty or not guilty. It's guilty or innocent. Hope this helps.

No, it's "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" or it's not guilty.

Notice how they call it "not guilty" and not "innocent"?

Hope this helps you finally understand law and order.

[DMN]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's guilty or not guilty. It's not guilty or innocent. Hope this helps.

The constitution, it's a thing, pinko.

[Jaxon]

JD does have a point kind of. There's a technical difference between actual innocence(when you can prove someone innocent) and a not guilty verdict(where you suspect someone's guilty but can't prove it). However living in a society where you have presumption of innocence makes that distinction irrelevant. A not guilty verdict has the same effect as a finding of actual innocence, so therefore you may as well just call the suspect innocent.

Failing to get an indictment(which requires an far lower burden of proof than a guilty verdict) after a lengthy and thorough investigation is an even stronger indicator of innocence.

[DMN]

Originally Posted by Jaxon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

JD does have a point kind of. There's a technical difference between actual innocence(when you can prove someone innocent) and a not guilty verdict(where you suspect someone's guilty but can't prove it). However living in a society where you have presumption of innocence makes that distinction irrelevant. A not guilty verdict has the same effect as a finding of actual innocence, so therefore you may as well just call the suspect innocent.

Failing to get an indictment(which requires an far lower burden of proof than a guilty verdict) after a lengthy and thorough investigation is an even stronger indicator of innocence.

You can't ever "prove someone innocent". That's proving a negative.

[Wonkie]

only the fetuses are innocent. any med student wanna elucidate the process by which original sin is transferred from parent to child?

[Jaxon]

Sure you can, an alibi is one example. If there's video of a suspect being 100 miles away from the crime scene at the time the crime was committed that's actual innocence. It's rare but things like that do actually happen.

[DMN]

Originally Posted by Jaxon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sure you can, an alibi is one example. If there's video of a suspect being 100 miles away from the crime scene at the time the crime was committed that's actual innocence. It's rare but things like that do actually happen.

You can't prove it wasn't people lying, body double, staged video etc.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by DMN [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can't prove it wasn't people lying, body double, staged video etc.

'reasonable doubt' plays well with a presumption of innocence, like saltines with Schlitz

[Jaxon]

I see he's resorting to the "YOU CAN'T PROVE YOU ARENT GOD" argument. It's possible to prove innocence to the same standard we use to prove guilt.