Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Whoa my friend, calm down. Nobody is advocating for a different regime. The point, rather, is that innocent has different meanings depending on context. Legally, yes, OJ was found not guilty. So he remained "innocent" in that sense.
|
It's the law that's the subject of discussion here and my
only interest is that the presumption of innocence isn't eroded. Were it not for the presumption of innocence I'm sure they'd be rounding up those they find "inconvenient". (Didn't they just put Tulsi Gabbard on the "Watch List" in your own country for criticizing the government?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
But whether his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law (a court where the prosecution royally effed up btw) is one thing.
|
So then I guess the prosecuting attorneys must have been fired by the California Attorney General and then disbarred for incompetence beyond the norm for State employees. But I don't recall hearing or reading any such accounts. Perhaps my memory is failing me now that I'm past retirement age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Whether he is truly innocent in the broader sense of the word is quite another thing -- he wasn't, as I think everyone knew including the civil jury.
|
I have severe problems with the civil litigation process in the States. A major problem is that litigants have broad scope to select a favourable jurisdiction for the assessment and trial of their case
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
By the way, the fifth amendment does not mention the presumption of innocence.
|
How about this then?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Section 11(d)
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right:
d. to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
|
