| Forum Index > Closed |
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:45 Dalguno wrote: Whaaat? I thought she had absolutely no supportive evidence and a guilty verdict was pretty much guaranteed ? From the wikipedia page I read (again, first time hearing about the case) she didn't even testify on her own behalf. All things considered, that was probably a good move. | ||
|
scorch-
United States816 Posts
On July 06 2011 06:14 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me: Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection. Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner. Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime. You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like. While Black's isn't the end-all/be-all of legal knowledge, it's pretty clear that what you're saying is the truth. The bias of our criminal justice system does not change these facts: 1. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 2. Casey Anthony was declared not guilty by a jury of her peers in a court of criminal law on the charges of murder and manslaughter. Pretty sure that means she was declared innocent, no matter how you define "innocent" and "not guilty." | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On July 06 2011 06:14 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me: Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection. Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner. Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime. You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like. BTW a legal certification of innocence is not the same as a verdict of not guilty. Judges issue certificates of innocence, and do so very rarely, as it is a pronouncement that the carrier could not have possibly committed the crime for which he is charged (e.g. if you were charged for the OJ Simpson murders, and it was discovered you were in France at the time of their deaths). On July 06 2011 06:18 scorch- wrote: While Black's isn't the end-all/be-all of legal knowledge, it's pretty clear that what you're saying is the truth. The bias of our criminal justice system does not change these facts: 1. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. 2. Casey Anthony was declared not guilty by a jury of her peers in a court of criminal law on the charges of murder and manslaughter. Pretty sure that means she was declared innocent, no matter how you define "innocent" and "not guilty." No. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is, they assume you are innocent until proven otherwise. The jury then decides whether the proof exists of your guilt. either the proof is there (making you guilty), or the proof isn't there (making you not guilty). It is not a declaration of innocence, because the point of the trial isn't to decide on your innocence (the only way they could declare innocence). They are deciding on your guilt. | ||
|
Dustbunny
47 Posts
On July 06 2011 06:14 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me: Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection. Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner. Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime. You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like. This changes nothing about the nuance. The burden was on the prosecution. Therefore the jury can find either for the prosecution or against it. In other words it can only find either: "GUILTY" or "NOT GUILTY". It CANNOT find "INNOCENT" or "NOT INNOCENT" as that would suggest that the defense had to prove innocence, which it never does. There is such as thing as a "Declaration of innocence" that judges can sign but these are exceedingly rare, normally in cases when the prosecution drops the charges due to lack of evidence. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 06 2011 06:07 Dustbunny wrote: Not to split hairs, but isn't that exactly what the defense is supposed to convey to the jury? Pointing out exactly what the prosecution did not do? I doubt a jury could on its own point what was missing in a skilled prosecutor's case if a good defense attorney did not harp on it to no end. On a side note, from post-trial jury interviews that I've heard, I almost never hear "the defense did a good job showing X", its always, "the prosecution failed to show X" because that's what good defense attorneys do, they emphasize that the burden is on the state and that the burden has not been met because they failed to show X. You'd be surprised at how smart juries are. Individually, jurors aren't particularly bright, but when you pool them together such that 6 to 12 of them are viewing a case from 6 to 12 different perspectives, you'd be surprised at what they pick up on. In fact, more often than not, jurors will latch on to some key fact(s) at trial that none of the attorneys found to be particularly significant. | ||
|
staplestf2
United States147 Posts
| ||
|
scorch-
United States816 Posts
On July 06 2011 06:21 MozzarellaL wrote: BTW a legal certification of innocence is not the same as a verdict of not guilty. Judges issue certificates of innocence, and do so very rarely, as it is a pronouncement that the carrier could not have possibly committed the crime for which he is charged (e.g. if you were charged for the OJ Simpson murders, and it was discovered you were in France at the time of their deaths). No. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is, they assume you are innocent until proven otherwise. The jury then decides whether the proof exists of your guilt. either the proof is there (making you guilty), or the proof isn't there (making you not guilty). It is not a declaration of innocence, because the point of the trial isn't to decide on your innocence (the only way they could declare innocence). They are deciding on your guilt. So, logically, how does this change the presumption of innocence by our system? She was not found guilty, so our criminal justice system still presumes her innocence, correct? Presumption of innocence is a legal idea, but it is also a fundamental idea of our justice system. How can you say that she is anything but innocent when they haven't found her guilty of the crime? | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On July 06 2011 06:36 scorch- wrote: So, logically, how does this change the presumption of innocence by our system? She was not found guilty, so our criminal justice system still presumes her innocence, correct? Presumption of innocence is a legal idea, but it is also a fundamental idea of our justice system. How can you say that she is anything but innocent when they haven't found her guilty of the crime? Here's an example. I work at a company, and for years, I have been stealing funds from the company every time I go on a business trip by overstating my expenses, I take home supplies that have been entrusted to me by my supervisor and use them for my own purposes. This is embezzlement. When my actions are exposed, a not very bright DA charges me with theft. The jury laughs at the DA because I did not commit theft--I committed embezzlement. So they find me not guilty of theft. I am anything but innocent of a crime, but I am not guilty of theft. | ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
We're using legal definitions, not general definitions. If the argument was purely on general definitions then I won, because innocent = not guilty in general definitions. He said that, legally, they were defined differently. Black's Law Dictionary (one of the most widely used in American Law) disagrees with what he's saying. In fact, as far as I can tell, a verdict of "Innocent" is not read, since the verdict "not guilty," is used to show acquittals, which (according to the same dictionary) means to "legally certify as innocent." In other words, dictionary.com is not a valid source in a discussion of legal terminology. Black's Law dictionary, however, is (and there's only one definition of acquittal, you can look at it yourself). He is claiming some non-listed nuance in the terminology of law. I doubt the validity of that, but can't prove it. | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On July 06 2011 03:22 Spekulatius wrote: Who's Casey Anthony? And why is it funny that he's not guilty? You are my hero. People cared way too much about this damn case. I wish I had never heard about it. buuuuttt I guess it was inevitable given all the news media coverage. Even though i think she did it, I'm kinda glad she was found not guilty as I believe the prosecution was going to the death penalty. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 06 2011 06:14 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: That's weird, Black's Law dictionary agrees with me: Innocent: (somewhere around pg 485) Free from guilt; acting in good faith and without knowledge of incriminatory circumstances, or of defects or objection. Not guilty (somewhere around pg 644) The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner. Acquit (pg 18) To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime. You guys can manually search the terms here if you'd like. It's ironic that we got onto this topic because you called someone an idiot and claimed they were using semantics to make an argument. People are simply pointing out that there is a difference between not guilty and innocent in the eyes of the law. Innocent = you definitely didn't do it, and not guilty = it can't be proven that you did it. You are using dictionaries to try to equate not guilty to innocent. If anyone is using semantics it's you. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On July 06 2011 06:36 scorch- wrote: So, logically, how does this change the presumption of innocence by our system? She was not found guilty, so our criminal justice system still presumes her innocence, correct? Presumption of innocence is a legal idea, but it is also a fundamental idea of our justice system. How can you say that she is anything but innocent when they haven't found her guilty of the crime? Are you talking legally or what? If you take every person in the world and put them on the same trial (including the murderer whoever it is) and they are all found not guilty, everyone is innocent even though someone actually did the crime? Saying someone is "not guilty" is simply saying "we can't prove you did it." Legally declaring ones innocents is "you did not commit this crime." There is a difference, legally or not. | ||
|
Saicam
262 Posts
| ||
|
pi_rate_pir_ate
United States179 Posts
I don't know if she was charged with accessory to murder or not. This type of charge may have been rightfully upheld with the evidence that had been collected. Everyone needs to remember that they were not on the jury and so did not have the same access to evidence or the same instructions from the judge. Also remember that the media early on crucified this woman and that is the only source of information that any of us outside the courtroom have. The media needs to demonstrate a humility in reporting things that allows the rest of us who rely on them to also demonstrate humility towards juries. | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On July 06 2011 06:44 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: show acquittals, which (according to the same dictionary) means to "legally certify as innocent." In other words, dictionary.com is not a valid source in a discussion of legal terminology. Black's Law dictionary, however, is (and there's only one definition of acquittal, you can look at it yourself). He is claiming some non-listed nuance in the terminology of law. I doubt the validity of that, but can't prove it. An acquittal is not a legal certificate of innocence. You had two different people tell you that a certificate of innocence is a rare judge-made pronouncement. Stop derping. edit: Just because to 'legally certify as innocent' can be described as an acquittal does not mean that is how it is used in this context. either way, stop derping. | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
| ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On July 06 2011 06:44 BlackJack wrote: It's ironic that we got onto this topic because you called someone an idiot and claimed they were using semantics to make an argument. People are simply pointing out that there is a difference between not guilty and innocent in the eyes of the law. Innocent = you definitely didn't do it, and not guilty = it can't be proven that you did it. You are using dictionaries to try to equate not guilty to innocent. If anyone is using semantics it's you. No, I said he was stupid because he incorrectly used semantics. I think that I am correctly using them, because Black's Law dictionary defines Not guilty as "The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner." And acquit means "To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime." So, if Not Guilty = Acquitted, and Acquitted = Legally certified as innocent," how does not guilty != Innocent? Again, this is from Black's Law dictionary, which is one of the (maybe the) most widely used law dictionaries in the USA. By the definitions, I'm 100% correct, however, there is apparently some nuance in the language (undefined) that makes that not so. My point is that he's stupid because he's wrong, because (by definition) they mean the same thing. So far, no one has shown me that what I have said is false; they have, however, made unsubstantiated claims. I can't refute the claims very well, because he claims he's a lawyer (which could be true), and comes from a position of authority. | ||
|
scorch-
United States816 Posts
On July 06 2011 06:45 nihlon wrote: Are you talking legally or what? If you take every person in the world and put them on the same trial (including the murderer whoever it is) and they are all found not guilty, everyone is innocent even though someone actually did the crime? Saying someone is "not guilty" is simply saying "we can't prove you did it." Legally declaring ones innocents is "you did not commit this crime." There is a difference, legally or not. There isn't a difference. If, for some reason, you tried every person in the world and they are all found not guilty, then they ARE ALL INNOCENT in the eyes of the state. Absolute truth is irrelevant because our society has decided that absolute truth cannot be known in most cases and that in order to achieve various goals, people will be presumed innocent until proven guilty in all legal matters. The jury cannot be shown absolute truth. You do not know absolute truth. In most cases, the accused is the only living person who knows what really happened, and that "truth" only exists in their memories (which can be fucked up in traumatic situations). You're trying to reduce the situation to a math equation while ignoring the set of rules governing it. | ||
|
dacthehork
United States2000 Posts
On July 06 2011 06:58 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote: No, I said he was stupid because he incorrectly used semantics. I think that I am correctly using them, because Black's Law dictionary defines Not guilty as "The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner." And acquit means "To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime." So, if Not Guilty = Acquitted, and Acquitted = Legally certified as innocent," how does not guilty != Innocent? Again, this is from Black's Law dictionary, which is one of the (maybe the) most widely used law dictionaries in the USA. By the definitions, I'm 100% correct, however, there is apparently some nuance in the language (undefined) that makes that not so. My point is that he's stupid because he's wrong, because (by definition) they mean the same thing. So far, no one has shown me that what I have said is false; they have, however, made unsubstantiated claims. I can't refute the claims very well, because he claims he's a lawyer (which could be true), and comes from a position of authority. Such bad logic and understanding If I kill someone but cover it up well, and a jury says "Not guilty", I'm not innocent. I'm legally innocent, but I still killed the person. Legally innocent does not mean innocent. It's possible to be Legally Innocent and have committed the crime, it just means the jury did not see enough evidence / good lawyers / etc. Legally innocent does not mean innocent. If you can't understand this... the level of stupid in this thread is astounding. | ||
|
dacthehork
United States2000 Posts
On July 06 2011 07:04 scorch- wrote: There isn't a difference. If, for some reason, you tried every person in the world and they are all found not guilty, then they ARE ALL INNOCENT in the eyes of the state. Exactly legally innocent, no one is arguing she isn't legally innocent. She is legally innocent, but that does not mean she did not do it. zzzz Legally Innocent = a court of law says there is not enough proof to punish her Innocent = she really did not do it There is a difference | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
GSL
Cure vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs Bunny
KCM Race Survival
Big Gabe
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Escore
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
