Quote:
Originally Posted by John1941
We're not talking about whether people are treated as innocent or guilty. We're talking about whether they are innocent or guilty - whether they have in fact done something wrong or not. Something does not have to be legally proved to be true, even if legal proof is necessary for a legal conviction.
|
Without legal proof, I'm not willing to convict a man in thought, word or deed. And when I consider a man to be innocent, I just say he's innocent and I leave it at that. I leave no doubts whatsoever with my choice of words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1941
Is a stone not heavy unless I have convicted it of heaviness in a court of law? It's the same question.
|
A false equivalence if I've ever seen one. Stones need no constitutional protection. It's only individuals, particularly free thinking ones, who do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1941
Do you really not understand this distinction? Are you just trolling us?
|
Do you really suspect that a Libertarian whose overriding interest is protecting individuals (including myself) from malicious prosecution by the State may just be trolling? Well you're wrong, very wrong. When it comes to the presumption of innocence, I make no compromises. It's innocent until proven guilty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1941
I believe that we can best defend ourselves against the all-powerful state by by saying that there is truth outside what the state says.
|
Fffftttt! Claptrap. The only protection that an individual has from the overriding power of the State is strict constitutional constraints on the power of the government. And the presumption of innocence is one of those.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1941
It is the 1984-type state that says what you are essentially saying: that nothing is true if it is not said by the state.
|
Nonsense! That's a preposterous argument. Just because I accept one specific definition in the Constitution in no way implies that I must embrace any other let alone all other government definitions.
In only a
1984 kind of State can a man be guilty before being convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Baltic's position is circular.
|
I'm saying that a man is innocent until and unless convicted in a court of law. What I'm saying is simple and direct. There's no circularity there at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
If innocent MEANS not convicted, then of course you're innocent until convicted.
|
Yes, precisely. Case closed.