Proves my point, unprecedented, one case where new evidence proved the person to be innocent,a not guilty says there is not enough evidence to say the person is guilty, it in no way says they are innocent. It's like someone doing time for murder, then another comes forward and proves he did it, that's innocent, but probably less than 1% chance of that and only on retrials etc, the rest are just not guilty.
Thanks for that. It's helpful and supportive, but not really what I was trying to say, Eric. Did you read my 4 points a few posts back? Am I deluding myself, or is there a logical structure to what I'm trying to say? It's very difficult to get Chesh to understand anything he believes to be untrue, no matter why he considers it to be untrue. Facts are rejected in favour of whatever random thoughts pass through his wee head unchallenged. So, am I going insane, or is it logically structured & understandable? Correctness we can deal with as a follow-on phase, if that is an issue. I just want to understand if my statement is able to be followed by someone with an open mind.
I'm sure Eric knows the same as the rest of the world,you are deemed not guilty, not innocent as you proclaimed, the fact he had to get a post from 26 years ago tells you a lot really.
You appear logical and structured, if it's any help I understand you. The Falklands War I was with you all the way, a war is a war. I suspect the aspect of declared or not was one of the key points of dispute as well as there still being no agreement to resolve the cause of the war, so technically there is still a dispute although relations have now normalised to a large extent. Innocence and guilt, yes. A person is innocent until proven guilty but the point that was at dispute was does a judge declare somebody innocent, generally they don't need to as there is an assumption of innocence. There is perhaps a need for this when a conviction is overturned.
I'm sure Eric can speak for himself, and will hopefully answer the question I asked him - not the question you're trying to get him to answer. Good try, Chesh. Must be concerned if you're trying to influence him.
Thanks for that, Eric. Plus the Falklands 'Brucie Bonus' (are you familiar with the origin of this UK term? - Nowt to do with the Monty Python sketch, btw.). Can I ask you to look again at the '4 points' - the bit where I move on to the binary states of guilty & innocent, & the implicit declaration implied in the 'free to go' Judge's closing speech. - i.e. in declaring you are free to go, your status has not changed from innocent to the other, guilty. Is my logic flawed with this bit? Btw, get your tin hat on. When Chesh wakes up, you'll prolly find a deluge of pish heading your way for not agreeing with him.
I may be wrong (unusual) and I'm sure I will be corrected ad nauseum, but I don't believe the UK ever declared war on Japan, at least not formally. Corrections to follow.
If these are the four points: 1. It is a fundamental legal principle that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Agreed? 2. In legal terms, your status is binary - you are either guilty or innocent. Agreed? 3. If you are found not guilty in court, then your status has not changed. You remain innocent. Agreed? 4. After reading the jury's not guilty verdict, the Judge will address the accused, and tell him/her, amongst other things, that they are free to go. i.e. he is Not Guilty, and the Judge has underlined that his innocent state has not changed. Agreed? 1. A basis of UK and Coomonwealth law What is the presumption of innocence? The presumption of innocence imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge and guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProt...danceSheets/Pages/Presumptionofinnocence.aspx 2. Innocent if you haven't been charged. If you have then guilty or not guilty, in English law you are one or the other. In Scotland there is also "not proven" http://dukeundergraduatelawmagazine...-three-verdict-system-a-look-into-not-proven/ I think there is also acquittal in the USA, which I believe to be similar to "not proven" 3. Not guilty is not necessarily innocent, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INNOCENT AND NOT GUILTY? In conclusion, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." No one needs to prove that you are innocent in order to avoid conviction for the crime. Our criminal justice system does not require proof that you are innocent but rather, that the jury have no reasonable doubts about whether or not you committed the crime. If they do have doubts, you will be declared "not guilty" and charges will be dropped, regardless of whether or not you were actually innocent or guilty. This rule serves to protect the accused from being convicted unjustly. It is a much more difficult task to prove actual innocence than to prove there is room for reasonable doubt. https://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2016/may/what-is-the-difference-between-innocent-and-not-/ From US but UK similar. Doubt leads to a not guilty verdict. Unfortunately this doesn't prove innocence, but then again you don't have to. 4. As in 3, generally the judge will not declare a person innocent just not guilty. I read somewhere an old maxim that it was better to let 10 guilty men go free than to incarcerate one innocent man. https://www.cato.org/policing-in-america/chapter-4/blackstones-ratio
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1941/dec/08/prime-ministers-declaration 8th Dec 1941, the day after Japan declared war on the US and Britain and 1 day after Pearl Harbour. The Vietnam War wasn't official nor was Korea.
Sorry, Eric, there was an addition to the '4 points', but came in a later post. I thought I'd posted it all together in the later post. Apols for the misdirection. I've put it all together here for clarity. 1. It is a fundamental legal principle that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Agreed? 2. In legal terms, your status is binary - you are either guilty or innocent. Agreed? 3. If you are found not guilty in court, then your status has not changed. You remain innocent. Agreed? 4. After reading the jury's not guilty verdict, the Judge will address the accused, and tell him/her, amongst other things, that they are free to go. i.e. he is Not Guilty, and the Judge has underlined that his innocent state has not changed. Agreed? Then look up the words explicit & implicit. As there is no change of status to a 'Not Guilty' verdict, an explicit expression by the Judge is not necessary. 'Free to go' is an implicit version of the self same thing.
Presumption of innocence is your right unless you are found guilty. If you are found not guilty then in the legal sense you retain the general state of being assumed innocent but, being pedantic, it doesn't mean you are 100% innocent of the alleged offence. You may have done it but had a really smart lawyer. There is no need for the judge to be explicit and state that you have retained the normal condition of being assumed innocent as it is evident in the fact that you have not been found guilty, i.e. innocent until proven guilty, but there is no implied statement that you are innocent, i.e. didn't commit the act, when you are told you are free to go but you retain the assumed innocent status in the eyes of the law. There are some interesting cases in California when you can go to court and have yourself declared innocent after being acquitted. If the court agree that you are innocent then all records of the case are destroyed. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jan-31-me-adair31-story.html All of the above is my humble opinion so please don't rely on it.
Hahahaha wtf is all that bull ****, he still says not guilty not your innocent. man up and admit you're wrong.
