On 28 Sep 2003 00:50:07 -0700, (Isidor
Gunsberg) wrote:

Well isn't the theory supposed to be that one is innnocent until
proven guilty? If so then if he wasn't proven guilty he must be
considered innocent before the law.

I think that "innocent until proven guilty" is not so much a
theory, as it is a well-intentioned cliche.

Then you are rather ignorant of your own nation's history.

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
On 28 Sep 2003 00:50:07 -0700, (Isidor
Gunsberg) wrote:

Well isn't the theory supposed to be that one is innnocent until
proven guilty? If so then if he wasn't proven guilty he must be
considered innocent before the law.

I think that "innocent until proven guilty" is not so much a
theory, as it is a well-intentioned cliche.

Then you are rather ignorant of your own nation's history.


Go ask Jose Padilla about "innocent until proven guilty".

Oh wait, you can't, this U.S. citizen has been held incommunicado, no
visitors, no phone calls, for more than a year. In a Navy brig, without
being charged with anything, without being able to face his accusers.

Or are you ignorant of this rather recent bit of history?

In article . net, "Bo
Raxo" wrote:


Oh wait, you can't, this U.S. citizen has been held incommunicado, no
visitors, no phone calls, for more than a year. In a Navy brig, without
being charged with anything, without being able to face his accusers.

Or are you ignorant of this rather recent bit of history?

Wait, wait--that can't be true, because the PATRIOT Act only applies to
resident and illegal aliens. Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly told me so.

--Robert

--
Do not sit next to Dennis

Heil Dubya!

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
.. .
On 28 Sep 2003 00:50:07 -0700, (Isidor
Gunsberg) wrote:

Well isn't the theory supposed to be that one is innnocent until
proven guilty? If so then if he wasn't proven guilty he must be
considered innocent before the law.

I think that "innocent until proven guilty" is not so much a
theory, as it is a well-intentioned cliche.

Then you are rather ignorant of your own nation's history.


Go ask Jose Padilla about "innocent until proven guilty".

Oh wait, you can't, this U.S. citizen has been held incommunicado, no
visitors, no phone calls, for more than a year. In a Navy brig, without
being charged with anything, without being able to face his accusers.

Or are you ignorant of this rather recent bit of history?


Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

Dear Mr. Lee,

Heil Dubya!

In article . net, "Bo
Raxo" wrote:


Oh wait, you can't, this U.S. citizen has been held incommunicado, no
visitors, no phone calls, for more than a year. In a Navy brig, without
being charged with anything, without being able to face his accusers.

Or are you ignorant of this rather recent bit of history?

Wait, wait--that can't be true, because the PATRIOT Act only applies to
resident and illegal aliens. Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly told me so.

--Robert

--
Do not sit next to Dennis


Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

Ed Seedhouse wrote in message
. ..
On 28 Sep 2003, (Isidor Gunsberg) wrote:
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
Well isn't the theory supposed to be that one is innnocent until
proven guilty? If so then if he wasn't proven guilty he must be
considered innocent before the law.

I think that "innocent until proven guilty" is not so much a theory,
as it is a well-intentioned cliche.

Then you are rather ignorant of your own nation's history.

According to some American professional historians of my acquaintance, the
theoretical presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" in United States
criminal law has not always been strictly observed in some cases, particularly
those with some perceived political or "national security" implications.

'Ignorance is relative.'
--Benjamin Disraeli (Sybil)

--Nick

"Steve Grant" wrote in message
...
"Kenneth C." wrote in message
...
"Isidor Gunsberg" wrote in message
om...
I think that "innocent until proven guilty" is not so much a theory,
as it is a well-intentioned cliche. After all, "Not guilty until
proven guilty" doesn't have much of a ring to it, and sounds rather
self-evident, to boot.

What is self-evident, and rather obvious, is that, innocent = not guilty,
and not guilty = innocent. Why there should be disagreement on such a
simple thing, is amazing!!

Why should it be so "amazing" that some other persons may be less ignorant
of what legal concepts mean?

Not just self-evident and rather obvious, but wrong, too.

Aye, particularly in Scots law, which permits a criminal trial to conclude with
any one of these three verdicts: 'Guilty', 'Not Guilty', or 'Not Proven'.

Here's a link to an introduction to the laws of Scotland:
http://www.siliconglen.com/Scotland/1_8.html

Lady Macbeth: 'Out, damned spot! Out, I say!'
--William Shakespeare (Macbeth)

--Nick

(Parrthenon) wrote in message ...
I prefer the Scotch verdict: proven or not proven rather than guilty or not
guilty.

Mr. Parr:

With all due respect to your preference after having consumed a bottle of
Scotch, Scots law permits a criminal trial to conclude with any one of these
three verdicts: 'Guilty', 'Not Guilty', or 'Not Proven'.

'The law as a special science is obsolete.'
--Edward Bellamy (Looking Backward)

--Nick

Ed Seedhouse wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:32:08 GMT, "PaoloTCS"
wrote:

He was found **Not Guilty**. He may be innocent, but what the jury found
was that Dr. Sherzer was not guilty.

Well isn't the theory supposed to be that one is innnocent until
proven guilty? If so then if he wasn't proven guilty he must be
considered innocent before the law.

No, he's considered not criminally liable. "Innocent until proven
guilty" is just a statement of where the burden of proof lies in a
criminal case. The state must prove the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. And it's the last four words in the last sentence
that are the issue. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means that when the
evidence of guilty is somewhat questionable, there shouldn't be a
conviction. It doesn't mean that the defendant is innocent, it means
that there is a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty. Our system
of justice (in theory) requires the highest proof before taking away a
person's liberty and saddling him with a criminal conviction.


Look at the OJ Simpson case. Not guilty criminally, but civilly
liable for the deaths. The reason why those two verdicts are not
contradictory in the eyes of the law is the fact that the plaintiff's
burdens in each case were different. The criminal burden was "beyond
a reasonable doubt," while the civil burden is "preponderance of the
evidence," a lower standard of proof.

This was a case in which the defense was entrapment, a very difficult
defense that requires showing serious overreaching on the part of the
police. As far as his conduct in this case, Sherzer initiated the
contact and took the bait. He's just not criminally liable for taking
the bait.

Mark

Robert Lee wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Bo Raxo" wrote (to Ed Seedhouse):
Oh wait, you can't, this U.S. citizen has been held incommunicado, no
visitors, no phone calls, for more than a year. In a Navy brig, without
being charged with anything, without being able to face his accusers.
Or are you ignorant of this rather recent bit of history?

Wait, wait--that can't be true, because the PATRIOT Act only applies to
resident and illegal aliens. Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly told me so.

'Those who will tell one fib will hardly stick at another.'
--Henry Fielding (Tom Jones)

Here's a link to Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?" website, which has an
appendix, "Fact-checking Ann Coulter", which exposes some of her falsehoods:

http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/apndx_1.htm

Here are links to how Ann Coulter may be perceived in the United Kingdom:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/st...956452,00.html

'An Appalling Magic' by Jonathan Freedland in 'The Guardian' (17 May 2003)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/st...961225,00.html

"Jonathan Freedland says that we have to understand Ann Coulter and the beliefs
of the American right she represents. I disagree. We understand all too easily
the broad spectrum of ambition she and a vast proportion of her fellow Americans
hold. Freedland's suggestion is, we have no control over it and it's going to
happen, so we'd better buckle up and take notice. What we have to do, and do
now, is *resist*. Politically, democratically and, if all else fails, by force.
We believe in freedom, and they absolutely do not...."
--Harry Costello (24 May 2003, letter to 'The Guardian')

Here are two recent books (2003) on the United States political right-wing:

"What Liberal Media? : the Truth About Bias and the News" by Eric Alterman

"Lies (And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them)" by Al Franken

'Falsehood triumphed. It triumphed through doubt, through stupidity, through
pity, through sentimentalism.'
--Joseph Conrad (The ****** of Narcissus)

--Nick