Quoting Snark:

Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
It may seem like a matter of semantics, but he is not "innocent" in the eyes of the law.  The fact that he was adjudged "not Guilty" does not mean he was "innocent."

Presumption of innocent until guilt is proved is fundamental in our system.  In the eyes of the law, he IS innocent.  He might not be innocent in the eyes of reality though.

Actually, you are confusing issues here.  Our justice system provides a "presumption of innocence" for all defendants until such time as they are found guilty.

However, once you go to trial, there are only two verdicts: "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".

Being found "Not Guilty" only means that the evidence in the trial was insufficient to support a "Guilty" verdict.  You are said to be "acquitted" of the charges; not innocent.

Quoting Snark:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Actually, you are confusing issues here.  Our justice system provides a "presumption of innocence" for all defendants until such time as they are found guilty.

However, once you go to trial, there are only two verdicts: "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".

Being found "Not Guilty" only means that the evidence in the trial was insufficient to support a "Guilty" verdict.  You are said to be "acquitted" of the charges; not innocent.

He wasn't found guilty Hal, and he won't be.  The prosecution took their whack and missed.  Badly.

You are correct, he won't be found guilty, but he will never be found innocent either.  In our judicial system there are two possible outcomes to a trial...three if you count a hung jury, but let's keep it simple.  You are either convicted of a crime, found guilty, or you are acquitted, found not guilty.

While it is a popular misconception, acquitted does not mean innocent.  Acquitted means 'legally blameless'.  Not quite the same thing.

Quoting Snark:

Quote:
It's a semantic difference that makes no difference at all.  In the eyes of the law he will be treated as if he is innocent of that crime.  Just like pleading "No contest" is treated as a guilty finding.

It is not a semantic difference.  Nobody is ever proven innocent in our legal system.  They are either guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, or not-guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.  Whether or not someone is innocent never comes into play.

Of course the system is supposed to be "Innocent until proven guilty" sadly though this has been distorted in the public eye  in recent years as "Guilty until proven innocent".

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting klandersen:

Quote:
Of course the system is supposed to be "Innocent until proven guilty" sadly though this has been distorted in the public eye  in recent years as "Guilty until proven innocent".

Hate to be a stickler here...actually I don't, but it sounds good  ...but in our system a person is not "innocent until proved guilty".  They are presumed innocent until proved guilty.

Unless my education was flawed (which is something I am finding to be true more each day), I'm not sure innocent until proven innocent is observed in Louisiana.  Isn't Louisiana law based on the Napopeonic Code where a defendant has to prove his "innocence" rather than the state proving his "guilt?"

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:

Unless my education was flawed (which is something I am finding to be true more each day), I'm not sure innocent until proven innocent is observed in Louisiana.  Isn't Louisiana law based on the Napopeonic Code where a defendant has to prove his "innocence" rather than the state proving his "guilt?"

From Article I:  Declaration of Rights, of the Louisiana Constitution:

Section 16. Every person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty...

Of course, that's just how it is supposed to be.  That doesn't mean it actually works that way. 

Thanks for clearing this up for me.  I always wondered why one state would be allowed to honor a different standard of justice.