Shaker Aamer, Guantanamo detainee.

[EFLImpudence]

Nevertheless, you can be detained while innocent until proved guilty.

You may be proved guilty even though innocent - although when found guilty you are, in fact, guilty even though you may not have committed the offence.

"Innocent until proven guilty" sounds good in theory but in practice, meaningless.

 

[terrypin]

Found guilty and possibly released.

Nevertheless, you can be detained while innocent until proved guilty.

You may be proved guilty even though innocent - although when found guilty you are, in fact, guilty even though you may not have committed the offence.

"Innocent until proven guilty" sounds good in theory but in practice, meaningless.

and if you get a "not guilty" verdict it doesn't mean you're innocent(in the eyes of the law)it means the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond reason etc.

 

[handyjack]

Can't comment, might get thread deleted.

 

[^woody^]

Nevertheless, you can be detained while innocent until proved guilty

There is a legal principle that justice should not be delayed. Certainly not by 14 years.

and if you get a "not guilty" verdict it doesn't mean you're innocent

Yes it does in the eyes of the law. The alternative is that everyone who ever goes to court is guilty of the crime of which they were acquitted.

 

[Whitespirit66]

Isn't it bizarre that the LWRs on here, with their deeply confused loyalties and logic, would go all out to defend one ROP who may or may not be innocent.

Recent posts about the plight of underage white girls who were sexually abused in northern mill towns were met with, at best, indifference by the same lefties. These girls' innocence mattered not.

Funny old world!

 

[^woody^]

Isn't it bizarre how some people can't tell their left from right?

Or right from wrong.

 

[JohnD]

Right from wrong?

They should have shot the **** first chance they had.

Is murder right or wrong?

 

[handyjack]

Right from wrong?

They should have shot the **** first chance they had.

Is murder right or wrong?

How would you know the difference.

 

[EFLImpudence]

and if you get a "not guilty" verdict it doesn't mean you're innocent

Yes it does in the eyes of the law.

Why is it called 'Not guilty", then?

 

[terrypin]

Nevertheless, you can be detained while innocent until proved guilty

There is a legal principle that justice should not be delayed. Certainly not by 14 years.

and if you get a "not guilty" verdict it doesn't mean you're innocent

Yes it does in the eyes of the law. The alternative is that everyone who ever goes to court is guilty of the crime of which they were acquitted.

1. 
   Innocent means that you did not commit the crime. Not Guilty means that there was not enough evidence to determine that you did commit the crime. There is a big difference between the two.

 

[^woody^]

Innocent means that you did not commit the crime. Not Guilty means that there was not enough evidence to determine that you did commit the crime. There is a big difference between the two.

What you are saying then, is that everyone is guilty only some times there is not enough evidence to prove it.

 

[terrypin]

Innocent means that you did not commit the crime. Not Guilty means that there was not enough evidence to determine that you did commit the crime. There is a big difference between the two.

What you are saying then, is that everyone is guilty only some times there is not enough evidence to prove it.

I am not saying anything, I'm quoting the law society and the definition of a not guilty verdict.

Say you are charged and remanded into custody until trial and found not guilty, you cannot sue the Crown for time in prison, loss of job etc. as you weren't found to be innocent.

if, on the other, the crown offer no evidence or the case is dropped you are entitled to compensation as you are presumed innocent.

 

[^woody^]

I am not saying anything, I'm quoting the law society and the definition of a not guilty verdict.

Really? It looks like a quote off reddit, out of context and about the US system.

 

[terrypin]

Ok woody, you're the expert so explain why the following doesn't mention the defendent is innocent, just that the case wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt?

This was taken from the crown office, U.K. Government site.

Not guilty/not proven – Verdicts that mean there was not enough evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, or there were other special reasons for not finding the accused guilty. Both verdicts mean the accused will be free to leave the court and cannot be tried again for the same offence.

Also, let's use a rape case as an example.
If the accused is found not guilty and let's presume not guilty means innocent, then why aren't the accusers charged with perjury? Lying in court is an imprisonable offence and if not guilty means innocent then the accuser must have lied.

The only way the accused is proven to be innocent is when the defence team produces evidence that proves beyond doubt he/she couldn't have committed the crime with which they are charged. Ie: cctv placing them elsewhere at the time of the crime. If this evidence was available before the trial then obviously the charges would have been withdrawn, if it was found during the trial the CPS would offer no more evidence and the judge would dismiss the case, either way it wouldn't involve a jury having to decide on a verdict.

 

[jeds]

Gone a bit off the track really. I don't know if this bloke was up to no good or not - he may well have been. But that's not the point, the point is it isn't right to lock somebody up for 14 years without charge. If he was up to no good then why did they not charge him and put it to the test in the normal way. The answer can only be that they weren't sure of their evidence.