The standard for acquitting is reasonable doubt. You're presumed innocent until proven guilty, so in theory you aren't necessarily required to prove your innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt. While it may work differently in practice at times, that idea IS actually a great one.
So yes, it may still be possible that someone who is acquitted is in fact guilty, but the prosecution isn't allowed a second chance.
> The thing about innocent-by-default is that false accusations are also a serious crime with serious penalties (for good reason), and if you believe that the accused is affirmatively innocent, you have to believe that the accused is guilty.
That's usually not strictly true; knowing false accusations are a crime, but it's usually possible for the accuser's statement not to be a knowing falsehood while the accused is not factually guilty.
> Whatever happened to 'innocent until proved guilty'
If Person A accuses Person B of something, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really get you anywhere. If you say Person B is innocent, that means you're saying Person A is guilty—of bearing false witness.
"You are using circular logic here: "They were convicted and that's proof that what they did is illegal.""
By definition, when someone is convicted, it's because they did something illegal, at least when all appeals are exhausted.
When deciding on guilt in a criminal case like this one, there are several questions a judge answers before coming to a verdict. I won't go into the details, but the ones you are conflating are "did they do what they were charged with", and "is what they did illegal".
"You are saying that never ever innocent people are convicted."
What? I said no such thing, not even remotely. "When innocent people are convicted", it's because they didn't do what they were charged with, yet a judge thought they did do it. In this case, that question is irrelevant: there is no question on whether they did 'it', just on whether what they did was against the law. You said that it's not, which is nonsense - the fact that several judges said it was, and an appeal was rejected, means that yes, what they did was against the law.
I agree with you. I think we're simply going around in circles because English is weird.
People who have not yet been found guilty are presumed to be innocent. You are absolutely correct. However, the statement I disagreed with was different. It was "If someone is found "not guilty" of murder then legally that person has not committed murder." Legally, that person is presumed innocent, like everyone else, but being found not guilty grants no special "definitely didn't commit murder" status.
Don't fall into the trap of already thinking of the accused is guilty. Also, framing this as an a or b choice is a false dichotomy. There are other outcomes, and they largely depend on the factors involved - prosecutors have the option to prove the accused is a danger to society, and if they can, they won't go back.
That is something you could ask about everyone who has ever been accused of anything and later acquitted. Unfortunately, it's also the same thing everyone accused and later convicted would like to say, so that logic can't control.
No when somebody says something that does not ring 100% TRUE, you question it and have a look into it yourself with multiple sources from contrasting perspectives.
But equally, you can't presume innocence as that's just as bad as presuming guilty.
Suppose B was accused of murder, initially convicted, then exonerated on appeal.
“B is a convicted murderer; true or false?”
“B was convicted of murder; true or false?”
If your answers are “false to the first but true to the second”, I’d wager you are frequently misunderstood by other people in conversations.
reply