Kendo Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 People keep saying he was found innocent. I thought that the choice was guilty or not guilty. I believe he was found not guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 People keep saying he was found innocent. I thought that the choice was guilty or not guilty. I believe he was found not guilty. Isn't it a case of innocent until proved guilty? As he was found not guilty then, here's the punchline, he's INNOCENT? (In the eyes of the law, you understand) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Isn't it a case of innocent until proved guilty? As he was found not guilty then, here's the punchline, he's INNOCENT? (In the eyes of the law, you understand) Never heard a judge ask a jury how do you find the accused, guilty or innocent? He was found not guilty end off. No need for your spin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Never heard a judge ask a jury how do you find the accused, guilty or innocent? He was found not guilty end off. No need for your spin. There's no spin involved here. The verdict itself from the jury is indeed guilty or not guilty (or not proven in Scotland), but the overarching law as relates to justice specifically and clearly uses the terminology 'innocent'. Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law...." Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." If a fair trial or tribunal does not displace the presumption of innocence (as is the case here), then the presumption stays in place and the accused remains legally innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) Never heard a judge ask a jury how do you find the accused, guilty or innocent? He was found not guilty end off. No need for your spin. There's no spin involved here. The verdict itself from the jury is indeed guilty or not guilty (or not proven in Scotland), but the overarching law as relates to justice specifically and clearly uses the terminology 'innocent'. Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law...." Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." If a fair trial or tribunal does not displace the presumption of innocence (as is the case here), then the presumption stays in place and the accused remains legally innocent. Back to the dunces corner for you Kendo. I do love you ZA. Edited September 11, 2013 by faraway saint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 There's no spin involved here. The verdict itself from the jury is indeed guilty or not guilty (or not proven in Scotland), but the overarching law as relates to justice specifically and clearly uses the terminology 'innocent'. Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law...." Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." If a fair trial or tribunal does not displace the presumption of innocence (as is the case here), then the presumption stays in place and the accused remains legally innocent. Blah, blah, blah ..................................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 There's no spin involved here. The verdict itself from the jury is indeed guilty or not guilty (or not proven in Scotland), but the overarching law as relates to justice specifically and clearly uses the terminology 'innocent'. Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law...." Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law." If a fair trial or tribunal does not displace the presumption of innocence (as is the case here), then the presumption stays in place and the accused remains legally innocent. As with the term 'capacity', innocence is a legal concept, not an absolute. As such, someone might be found 'not guilty', but this does not mean he is innocent. Being deemed not guilty could simply mean you've not been caught/convicted yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Absolutely Drew - Moral innocence and legal innocence are not necessarily the same thing. No arguments at all there from me. Just as, for example medical insanity and (what used to be termed) legal insanity are not necessarily the same thing. The problem is - we don't know what happened behind closed doors, it could have been something, it could have been nothing. Therefore we cannot judge on the morals - none of us are in a position to do that, we can only judge on the evidence. Being legally 'not guilty' does = being legally 'innocent', the two are intertwined. But then I would say that given my area of work.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Just as, for example medical insanity and (what used to be termed) legal insanity are not necessarily the same thing. .... Leave shull alone. He isn't even taking part in the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendo Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 The accuser has not necessarily told lies.There may not have been enough evidence to find him guilty but his not guilty outcome does not mean he's totally innocent.If the trial had been in Scotland I'm quite sure it would have come back Not Proven...which really means guilty but we can't prove it. I'm sure the truth will come out one day. Totally agree. Some of the comments over the last day have been from people who seem to believe in the infallibility of the legal system. Plenty of guilty people get off with their crimes, while some innocent people get convicted. Part of the problem is the jury system isn't great. I know people who have been selected for jury duty who would struggle to follow a plot from In the Night Garden, never mind a complex court case. Everyone selected for jury duty should really have to undergo some sort of intelligence test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovestreet Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Would Saville be given a not guilty verdict had he been able to defend himself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Totally agree. Some of the comments over the last day have been from people who seem to believe in the infallibility of the legal system. Plenty of guilty people get off with their crimes, while some innocent people get convicted. Part of the problem is the jury system isn't great. I know people who have been selected for jury duty who would struggle to follow a plot from In the Night Garden, never mind a complex court case. Everyone selected for jury duty should really have to undergo some sort of intelligence test. To be fair, I dont think thats the best example... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 To be fair, I dont think thats the best example... Whit about Waybuloo ? They're a weird bunch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmc Posted September 11, 2013 Report Share Posted September 11, 2013 Absolutely Drew - Moral innocence and legal innocence are not necessarily the same thing. No arguments at all there from me. Just as, for example medical insanity and (what used to be termed) legal insanity are not necessarily the same thing. The problem is - we don't know what happened behind closed doors, it could have been something, it could have been nothing. Therefore we cannot judge on the morals - none of us are in a position to do that, we can only judge on the evidence. Being legally 'not guilty' does = being legally 'innocent', the two are intertwined. But then I would say that given my area of work.... A "friend" of mines may have a wee "meeting" with some other guys coming up soon. He was wondering if there was any chance of having a "wee word" with you before this said meeting takes place?? Nothing formal you understand! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 A "friend" of mines may have a wee "meeting" with some other guys coming up soon. He was wondering if there was any chance of having a "wee word" with you before this said meeting takes place?? Nothing formal you understand! Naw, yir fae Greenock !! GUILTY AS CHARGED !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 A few people getting their knickers in a twist over assuming all sorts of stuff. Several things could have happened here. 1) The accuser could be lying. 2) The accuser could have been telling the truth but unable to prove it. 3) There could be some truth and some exaggeration leaving credible doubt. The not guilty verdict could be because of any of those three. Humans are not intelligent creatures and will make their own minds up about which one it is regardless of the fact that they no nothing about the case. They'll just "know" what the real story is. Those who believe 1) will demand the "lying bastard" also be identified. Those who believe 2) and/or 3) will always be suspicious of the accused and some may even always refer to him as guilty of something. All of the above are responsible for the problem we have of naming accused before trial. A relatively small handful will trust the process and accept the results without question. Both are reasons why cases like this MUST have anonymity for those involved until a verdict is reached in the case of the accused. THEN if 1) has happened the accuser MUST be prosecuted and if found guilty THEN you can name the accuser as well. I understand the argument about persuading more people to come forwards with information but IMO this is massively outbalanced by the need to protect the claim of innocent until proven guilty which is a fundamental legal right which is being repeatedly undermined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nedflanders123 Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 farawaysaint and nedflanders123 have yet again proved what a pair of despicable human beings they are on this thread. Why? If you are going to cast personal slights in my direction then grow a pair and explain or are you one of those aliases who hide behind the keyboard? You sir need to understand the difference between a question and a statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windae cleaner Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 Why? If you are going to cast personal slights in my direction then grow a pair and explain or are you one of those aliases who hide behind the keyboard? You sir need to understand the difference between a question and a statement. Ned he is a man of many,many, and many aliases that he finds it hard to keep track of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) I understand the argument about persuading more people to come forwards with information but IMO this is massively outbalanced by the need to protect the claim of innocent until proven guilty which is a fundamental legal right which is being repeatedly undermined. The issue you are highlighting isn't a shortcoming of the justice system though, it is a reflection on society. Concerns surrounding this guy's reputation should not be placed at the door of the justice system. Instead, attention should be directed at the media, social media, general ignorance and a pervasive love of tawdry tittle-tattle etc. It isn't the justice system that should be changed. The very idea of a closed justice system is very genuinely chilling. Edited September 12, 2013 by Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) The issue you are highlighting isn't a shortcoming of the justice system though, it is a reflection on society. Concerns surrounding this guy's repuation should not be placed at the door of the justice system. Instead, attention should be directed at the media, social media, general ignorance and a pervasive love of tawdry tittle-tattle etc. It isn't the justice system that should be changed. The very idea of a closed justice system is very genuinely chilling. Why would it be a closed justice system? The case could still be reported AFTER the case. This is just a timing issue. BTW I agree about the society thing you talk about but you can't put toothpaste back in the tube. People no longer seem to value things of genuine importance because they are usually difficult and "boring". If you provide people with two paths they'll usually go for the lowest path of resistance and then wonder why their life is full of shite. The root cause of our societal problems IMO is the provision of lower paths of resistance. In other words the act of developing a nation causes it's moral downfall. It's why we are less happy than we used to be and yet people from poorer countries are much happier. Ironic really and totally counterintuitive. Just my view though. Edited September 12, 2013 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 Why would it be a closed justice system? The case could still be reported AFTER the case. This is just a timing issue. BTW I agree about the society thing you talk about but you can't put toothpaste back in the tube. People no longer seem to value things of genuine importance because they are usually difficult and "boring". If you provide people with two paths they'll usually go for the lowest path of resistance and then wonder why their life is full of shite. The root cause of our societal problems IMO is the provision of lower paths of resistance. In other words the act of developing a nation causes it's moral downfall. It's why we are less happy than we used to be and yet people from poorer countries are much happier. Ironic really and totally counterintuitive. Just my view though. Just saying...."least path of resistance" would be more meaningful and would make your argument more sound.Just saying.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiledfan Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 Fault here lies with the legal system. There needs to be a way that victims can feel comfortable coming forward and accused are protected till after the verdict and if guilty then named. CPS really messed this one up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 Just saying...."least path of resistance" would be more meaningful and would make your argument more sound. Just saying.... It might make my argument more sound in your opinion but it would also make no sense. It would also make me sound like a pompous twat who cared more about 17th century grammatical rules than making a coherent argument. We couldn't have that could we..... Just saying..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salmonbuddie Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 Just saying...."least path of resistance" would be more meaningful and would make your argument more sound. Just saying.... "path of least resistance" would be even better. And make more sense. Just saying...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted September 12, 2013 Report Share Posted September 12, 2013 "path of least resistance" would be even better. And make more sense. Just saying...... It might make my argument more sound in your opinion but it would also make no sense. It would also make me sound like a pompous twat who cared more about 17th century grammatical rules than making a coherent argument. We couldn't have that could we..... Just saying..... Is this an example of people no longer seem to value things of genuine importance because they are usually difficult and "boring"? Just saying... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.