Protest Paddy Jackson playing at the weekend?

greencap

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That says more about you than about her in my humble opinion

its no more wrong to speculate that she is lying than to speculate that a man proven to be innocent, committed a crime.

(yes proven innocent - European court of human rights, innocent until proven guilty, not found guilty, so innocent).

Shefwedfan

Yurt! wrote: »

Funnily enough, someone posed this very question on that forum today, and what would you know? Most responses appear to firmly disagree with your stance. Set straight indeed.

A sample reply:

"People can argue the morality and semantics of that innocence.
But!
The simple fact is that our justice system is entirely founded upon the basis of innocent until proven guilty.

As such, not guilty = innocent no matter how bunched up it may get knickers or triggered it makes people."

Ahh you see the difference is the people in the legal forum might actually have done some sort of legal training......

greencap

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I never said he was guilty. I 100 percent respect the jury's verdict. I'm just saying that it's impossible to be found innocent in a court. You are found guilty or not guilty. Some posters like to use terms like found innocent & she must have lied because there was no conviction or the jury had to believe she lied if they found him innocent. Court cases are more complex & are rarely black & white. Someone posted early today that most likely everyone was telling the truth. The lads thought they had consent & she thought she haden't given consent. I personally believe that this is very close to the truth.

They effectively did find him innocent.

Presumption of innocence, no guilty ruling, therefore he returns to the state of being innocent.

BDI

greencap wrote: »

its no more wrong to speculate that she is lying than to speculate that a man proven to be innocent, committed a crime.

(yes proven innocent - European court of human rights, innocent until proven guilty, not found guilty, so innocent).

Wait are you saying that people have rights to not be arrested and locked up forever on hearsay or speculation?

What if they are enemies of the minister for justice?

Can he not just lock them up?

What if they are witches?

Surely Facebook people should just read a tabloid headline and decide if life should mean life or if they are as low as a snakes belly and need corporal punishment. Then a woman with purple hair could have power of overturning this decision if it made her triggered.

Now that’s some real justice not the one who found micheal Jackson innocent in another country a couple of decades ago.

BDI

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I think you deliberately missed the point & posted something that looks like a real answer to what I said all the while knowing it's talking about something different.


Let's get this straight. I already said he is innocent as he was found not guilty. The burden of proof of this verdict is reasonable doubt. I never questioned his guilt or innocence. i repeatedly said I totally respect the jury's verdict of not guilty.


What I stated was that he was NOT found Innocent as there is no such thing as being found innocent. There is a genuine legal reason why the verdict is not guilty as opposed to found innocent. Legally they would be two totally different things if there was a innocent verdict. To be found innocent would require 100 percent certainty of his innocence & I'm very glad we don't have such a thing. If a jury has to have 100 percent certainty rather than reasonable doubt about someones innocence we'd find almost every court case ending in a conviction. More guilty people would go to jail BUT then we would also have innocent people going to jail. We have reasonable doubt & a not guilty verdict.



Being "found innocent" in a court is a made up thing. There is no such verdict.


Why don't you ask the legal forum is there such a verdict as "found innocent" outside of bad movies.

You were t found innocent either. How do we know you didn’t do it. It was nighttime everyone was drinking how do we know it wasn’t you?

Yurt2

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I think you deliberately missed the point & posted something that looks like a real answer to what I said all the while knowing it's talking about something different.


Let's get this straight. I already said he is innocent as he was found not guilty. The burden of proof of this verdict is reasonable doubt. I never questioned his guilt or innocence. i repeatedly said I totally respect the jury's verdict of not guilty.


What I stated was that he was NOT found Innocent as there is no such thing as being found innocent. There is a genuine legal reason why the verdict is not guilty as opposed to found innocent. Legally they would be two totally different things if there was a innocent verdict. To be found innocent would require 100 percent certainty of his innocence & I'm very glad we don't have such a thing. If a jury has to have 100 percent certainty rather than reasonable doubt about someones innocence we'd find almost every court case ending in a conviction. More guilty people would go to jail BUT then we would also have innocent people going to jail. We have reasonable doubt & a not guilty verdict.



Being "found innocent" in a court is a made up thing. There is no such verdict.


Why don't you ask the legal forum is there such a verdict as "found innocent" outside of bad movies.

Innocent is a direct antonym of guilty. If you don't believe me consult a dictionary. Like I said before, you're dancing on the head of a pin and trying to muddy the status of a verdict delivered to the highest standards in the full glare of the media with no aspersions cast on the bias of the jury of their peers (unlike let's say the OJ case, where it is accepted that the jury was tainted by outside influences in post-riot LA).

You're trying to insert your own steer on the law and ancient and well founded legal precepts.

You may as well be trying to argue that dry isn't the opposite of wet.

alastair

greencap wrote: »

its no more wrong to speculate that she is lying than to speculate that a man proven to be innocent, committed a crime.

(yes proven innocent - European court of human rights, innocent until proven guilty, not found guilty, so innocent).

No court finds anyone innocent, and there is no presumption of innocence beyond that applied to a defendant subject to trial.

is_that_so

Yurt! wrote: »

Innocent is a direct antonym of guilty. If you don't believe me consult a dictionary. Like I said before, you're dancing on the head of a pin and trying to muddy the status of a verdict delivered to the highest standards in the full glare of the media with no aspersions cast on the bias of the jury of their peers (unlike let's say the OJ case, where it is accepted that the jury was tainted by outside influences in post-riot LA).

You're trying to insert your own steer on the law and ancient and well founded legal precepts.

You may as well be trying to argue that dry isn't the opposite of wet.

Outside the legal system it is but legally and in terms of verdicts it's not. I think only Scotland has a verdict option of innocent.

alastair

is_that_so wrote: »

Outside the legal system it is but legally and in terms of verdicts it's not. I think only Scotland has a verdict option of innocent.

Scotland, along with the rest of the world, doesn't have a verdict of innocent. It applies Guilty, Not Guilty, or Not Proven.

Yurt2

is_that_so wrote: »

Outside the legal system it is but legally and in terms of verdicts it's not. I think only Scotland has a verdict option of innocent.

False. In Scotland it's guilty, not guilty and not proven (if you wish to be accurate).

Unless you're willing to accept that a Scottish 'not guilty' corresponds to 'innocent' but a 'not guilty' in other jurisdictions magically means something else.

Sleeper12

greencap wrote: »

its no more wrong to speculate that she is lying than to speculate that a man proven to be innocent, committed a crime.

(yes proven innocent - European court of human rights, innocent until proven guilty, not found guilty, so innocent).

In bold above I agree but when poster make wild claim like:

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I didn't make a judgement to say she lied, a court and a jury made that judgement.....

I do have a problem.


The only thing anyone can take from the verdict is that the jury had reasonable doubt. No more nor no less. Above poster didn't speculate on her telling lies, he in a cowardly way passed the blame onto the jury when no member of the jury has ever suggested the girl lied. I mean jasus to try suggest that a not guilty verdict automatically means anyone lied is a pretty tasteless thing to do.

Cupp3r

alastair wrote: »

Scotland, along with the rest of the world, doesn't have a verdict of innocent. It applies Guilty, Not Guilty, or Not Proven.

Guilty, Not Guilty or Acquittal of all charges in Ireland is it not.

is_that_so

alastair wrote: »

Scotland, along with the rest of the world, doesn't have a verdict of innocent. It applies Guilty, Not Guilty, or Not Proven.

Ah that's the third one. Thanks.

alastair

greencap wrote: »

wrong. ive read the entire text and more, and it basically says that all humans are innocent until proven guilty in all circumstances. its a human right.
why can't you just accept all the proof, the poll, and the multiple people telling you you're wrong about this. again, you're wrong.

You clearly have not read any of it. For a start it's nothing to do with the ECHR, it's a Commission directive, voted for in the European Parliament, and it says:

"The purpose of this Directive is to enhance the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings by laying down common minimum rules concerning certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at the trial."

Note the context is entirely within a trial.

is_that_so

Yurt! wrote: »

False. In Scotland it's guilty, not guilty and not proven (if you wish to be accurate).

Unless you're willing to accept that a Scottish 'not guilty' corresponds to 'innocent' but a 'not guilty' in other jurisdictions magically means something else.

Yeah, I've already had a far more civil version of this.

alastair

Cupp3r wrote: »

Guilty, Not Guilty or Acquittal of all charges in Ireland is it not.

Acquittal and Not Guilty are one and the same. So there's only two verdicts possible here.

Sleeper12

is_that_so wrote: »

Outside the legal system it is but legally and in terms of verdicts it's not. I think only Scotland has a verdict option of innocent.

I'm happy to be corrected but I don't think any English speaking country has an "innocent" verdict. I know the old Western movies they'd shout out innocent but I think that was only in the movies

Yurt2

Cupp3r wrote: »

Guilty, Not Guilty or Acquittal of all charges in Ireland is it not.

A not guilty verdict is an aquittal.

Yurt2

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm happy to be corrected but I don't think any English speaking country has an "innocent" verdict. I know the old Western movies they'd shout out innocent but I think that was only in the movies

Dancing. Head. Pin.

What's the antonym of guilty?

is_that_so

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm happy to be corrected but I don't think any English speaking country has an "innocent" verdict. I know the old Western movies they'd shout out innocent but I think that was only in the movies

I've already been corrected!

Yurt2

is_that_so wrote: »

Yeah, I've already had a far more civil version of this.

Apologies. I thought I was replying to the other poster with that response.

Sleeper12

Send me location wrote: »

Let it go for fukcsake, such sour grapes that you didn't get the verdict you wanted. Get over it.

Unlike most posters here I'm happy with the legal system & happy with the verdict. I wouldn't second guess a jury that sat through a trial that I only read about. The jury found him not guilty & I'm happy with their decision. However I don't feel the need to make up a verdict that doesn't exist just because I think it makes him sound "more" innocent. It's a moronic thing to do. He was found not guilty & is innocent. They are facts. Can we not stick with facts without going into make believe land??


What is wrong with sticking with facts??

is_that_so

Yurt! wrote: »

Dancing. Head. Pin.

What's the antonym of guilty?

Well this chap dances very well on that head and explains why it's not "innocent" in legal terms.

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/miscollr4&div=8&id=&page=

alastair

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Unlike most posters here I'm happy with the legal system & happy with the verdict. I wouldn't second guess a jury that sat through a trial that I only read about. The jury found him not guilty & I'm happy with their decision. However I don't feel the need to make up a verdict that doesn't exist just because I think it makes him sound "more" innocent. It's a moronic thing to do. He was found not guilty & is innocent. They are facts. Can we not stick with facts without going into make believe land??


What is wrong with sticking with facts??

Is OJ innocent? Is that a fact?

There's no doubt that Jackson was found not guilty, but it's for people to make up their own minds if he's actually innocent. One is a matter of fact, and the other a matter of personal judgement.

Sleeper12

is_that_so wrote: »

I've already been corrected!

My bad. I'm a slow typer. I bet I started typing before the other posters.

greencap

alastair wrote: »

No court finds anyone innocent, and there is no presumption of innocence beyond that applied to a defendant subject to trial.

no, thats wrong.
you're innocent until proven guilty. before, during, after, with or without any trial.

he wasn't found guilty so he's back to the default state of innocent.

this also means the plaintiff was a liar.

greencap

alastair wrote: »

You clearly have not read any of it. For a start it's nothing to do with the ECHR, it's a Commission directive, voted for in the European Parliament, and it says:

"The purpose of this Directive is to enhance the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings by laying down common minimum rules concerning certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at the trial."

Note the context is entirely within a trial.

Doesn't matter. He's not been proven guilty, so he returns to the default under EU law of innocent.

Sleeper12

Send me location wrote: »

You seem to be getting overly worked up about a word that means the same as not guilty. Who cares if it's not the term used in courts. It's irrelevant, Not guilty and innocent are equivalent terms.

Why is there no "innocent" verdict then? Why does each legal system actually go out of it's way not to have an "innocent" verdict if both legally mean the same thing?

alastair

greencap wrote: »

no, thats wrong.
you're innocent until proven guilty. before, during, after, with or without any trial.

he wasn't found guilty so he's back to the default state of innocent.

this also means the plaintiff was a liar.

You managed to get everything here wrong. Quite the achievement!

is_that_so

greencap wrote: »

no, thats wrong.
you're innocent until proven guilty. before, during, after, with or without any trial.

he wasn't found guilty so he's back to the default state of innocent.

this also means the plaintiff was a liar.

Innocent until proven guilty is a general concept of legal systems. Legal systems, however, use guilty or not guilty for actual outcomes.