It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A narrow point of contention. Juries don't find anyone "innocent". They either find them guilty or not guilty, assuming they reach a unanimous decision. "Not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent", it means guilt couldn't be proven to the threshold beyond a reasonable doubt.
I get that. But there is no criminal situation where a jury declares a defendant's innocence.
I don't believe a jury does have to, or can, declare a defendant's innocence, and never made the claim. My point is, you cannot make a claim that a person is innocent based upon a jury's decision.
Fair enough. I obviously misread your post here which I quoted here.
In my opinion, it isn't semantics to say a jury doesn't find a defendant innocent. That was my original point. All sorts of people are walking around who have been through the process, found not guilty, and are far from innocent. We understand and accept that as a tradeoff for minimizing the likelihood of punishing the truly innocent.
The absence of a guilty verdict does not make a person innocent. That is a fact, and is contrary to what I thought you were saying with the statement, "because the jury found them innocent of any crime". The threshold isn't "you definitely didn't do it", but "it wasn't proven you did". A jury's finding of Not Guilty isn't the same thing as declaring Innocence. It's a personal thing and I'll drop it.
Which you CANNOT do based upon the results of a trial. The distinction is guilty or not guilty. If you're going to consider every person acquitted as declared innocent, you're driving screws with a hammer. Which you're certainly free to do. But you're in both cases using a tool for something other than its intended purpose.
A person is innocent (or not) based upon the objective reality of the situation, which we may never be able to determine.
Whatever assumptions we choose to make don't affect that, regardless of the outcome of a trial.
Calling a person acquitted "not guilty" would be accurate.
Presuming them innocent and stating a court proceeding officially declared them innocent, are two different things, and that goes beyond semantics, in my opinion.
Seriously? You think a court has the ability to declare a person innocent?
If objective reality is defamation, then so be it.
Innocence as a declaration is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding.
It's guilty or not guilty.
For some reason you seem to be unable or unwilling to draw a distinction between not guilty and innocent, which frankly, surprises me.
It isn't the responsibility of the jury to declare someone innocent. They can't and don't do that in any official capacity. It's outside the scope.
OJ was found not guilty. I still wouldn't be comfortable with him dating my sister. Michael Jackson was found not guilty in a molestation case. I sure wouldn't have allowed him to watch any relative of mine.
These guys were both not guilty as determined by a jury. Did the jury find them innocent? Do you consider them to be innocent?
If a jury's not guilty verdict in a criminal proceeding means you're innocent, why can you still be sued in a civil case, since your innocence has already been established?
Just more crap, I guess.
What I've attempted to make clear, and obviously failed, is the fallacy of the statement you made here, to wit:
A petit jury cannot, will not, and does not find or declare anyone to be innocent. Ever. Period. If you want to ensure your rights are respected and not trampled upon, it might behoove you to at least have a fundamental grasp of what a court does and doesn't do in a criminal proceeding.
And let me add, I don't believe you WANT a jury in a criminal case to have the ability to make that call. It shifts the burden of proof to include an option which doesn't exist today - innocent.
Discuss among yourselves. It's become too tedious for me and is beginning to border on getting personal.