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.
replyNot guilty doesn't mean innocent. It means "guilt could not be proven", it does not mean "innocence was proven".
replySeriously, 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".
The finding is ‘not guilty’, rather than innocent. It does not mean the accused is innocent. It means they could not be proven guilty.
replyImportant 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.
replyDon’t overcomplicate it. People are discussing their opinions of truth, using relevant terms.
replyI mostly agree with the idea, but to accept this as an absolute implies our justice system is infallible
replythere 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.
replyNot guilty != innocent.
replyNo. To argue what you argue is to play pretend stupid.
replyCourt 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.