upvote

points

by phire18 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby erulabs17 hours ago|
[-]
It actually does. You can judge her, but she is not guilty. The more we as a society decide the justice system is just an arbitrary way of deciding who gets punished and not _the_ way of deciding if a person is or is not a criminal the more we slide towards oblivion.

If a person is found not guilty, they are not guilty. To argue otherwise is to undermine the core institution of western civilization.

reply
upvoteby lazyasciiart17 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Important to note that western civilization is fundamentally ok with the knowledge that the statement issued by a jury or judge does not actually define whether a person is morally, factually or colloquially “innocent”. Disputes may be addressed c/o OJ Simpson and the Central Park 5.
reply
upvoteby EdwardDiego12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. It means "guilt could not be proven", it does not mean "innocence was proven".

Seriously, this is why OJ was found liable for the murder of his wife in a civil case, as they're judged on the balance of probabilities.

And it's why people who have served time, then had a retrial ordered and then found not guilty, can be denied compensation, because decisions on compensation are also done on the balance of probabilities.

So yeah, "not guilty" != "innocent".

reply
upvoteby robotresearcher17 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
The finding is ‘not guilty’, rather than innocent. It does not mean the accused is innocent. It means they could not be proven guilty.
reply
upvoteby erulabs17 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Important to note that in the original conception of western civilization, no one is 'innocent'. This idea that you have some secret special power to sniff out a persons true heart from a distance, which is separate from a jury of a persons peers studying and debating the evidence, is at best misguided and arrogant, and at worst a pernicious threat.
reply
upvoteby willy_k16 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Don’t overcomplicate it. People are discussing their opinions of truth, using relevant terms.
reply
upvoteby shepherdjerred16 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I mostly agree with the idea, but to accept this as an absolute implies our justice system is infallible
reply
upvoteby zem13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
there is no way to argue that without also believing that the millions of people the state has tossed into prison are all guilty, which is really not something that I can do.
reply
upvoteby quickthrowman11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Not guilty != innocent.
reply
upvoteby watwut12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
No. To argue what you argue is to play pretend stupid.

Court of law with its ability imprison people must have higher standard for the "guilty" decision. That makes it possible for rich guilty people to not be judged guilty.

You are allowed and expexted to use own brain. You can consider people guilty.

reply