[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Not only is innocent until proven guilty a legal concept, but along with it goes the legal burden of proof, which is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a very high burden of proof and it exists in criminal cases because often the defendant's liberty is at stake. The system requires that if someone is going to lose their liberty, a very high burden of proof be met.

Loss of liberty and loss of image on a sports card are two different things. In the Vick case there is a lot of talk about letting the court process take its course.

But is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the standard that the whole world now has to use? Do Nike, Topps, the Atlanta Falcons, Joann Kline or public opinion now have to be tied to a standard that exists when someone's freedom is at stake?

I don't think so, myself. I think public opinion, commercial contracts and individual responses can be made on much less than a guilty verdict in a court of law. Also, IMO, I think it's pretty dangerous that we allow the dialog to take us down the road of not being able to do anything in society unless the criminal burden of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is met.

Joann