Discussion
smn159 said:
SpeckledJim said:
Not Guilty is the same as innocent.
No it isn'thttps://businessandlegal.ie/not-guilty-does-not-me...
popeyewhite said:
It means "that guilt has not been proven and the accused person can then enjoy the presumption of innocence, just like everybody else, including persons who have not been accused of any crime."
https://businessandlegal.ie/not-guilty-does-not-me...
A good explanation. https://businessandlegal.ie/not-guilty-does-not-me...
The Scottish system goes one step further, giving the option of “not proven”; which translate as “we think the accused is a guilty little s
te, but the evidence put forward does not prove it beyond reasonable doubt.”SpeckledJim said:
smn159 said:
SpeckledJim said:
Not Guilty is the same as innocent.
No it isn'tI'm not guilty of exactly the same list of crimes of which I'm innocent.
And of all the crimes of which guilty, I'm also not innocent.
https://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2016/may/what-i...
Durzel said:
Not guilty =/= innocent semantics seems like a rather ornamental way of saying "he probably did do it, but the jury in this particular instance didn't agree".
The difficulty here is we're not questioning the action, but the context in which that action took place. I.e. consensual or not.smn159 said:
Great. Shame its in the USZoon said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Evanivitch said:
photosnob said:
Ennis-Hill has ruined her legacy. She will always be known as the cow with the big mouth who got it wrong. She wasn't wrong to have her opinions - but her silence after he was cleared is disgusting.
She wasn't wrong at the time it was said. She was speaking in line with the court conviction that stood at that time.I'm not sure what she should be apologising for?
Would you employ a paedophile as a babysitter? And if not, would the bloke you failed to employ deserve an apology from you if his conviction was later overturned? What exactly did you do wrong?
pavarotti1980 said:
smn159 said:
Great. Shame its in the USsmn159 said:
Great. Please explain how the principle differs in the UK
They have a different legal system to the UK,similarly how the Scottish legal system is different and has different conclusions
so if you are not guilty of something, in the eyes of the law have you done it?
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Thursday 11th April 12:32
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Zoon said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Evanivitch said:
photosnob said:
Ennis-Hill has ruined her legacy. She will always be known as the cow with the big mouth who got it wrong. She wasn't wrong to have her opinions - but her silence after he was cleared is disgusting.
She wasn't wrong at the time it was said. She was speaking in line with the court conviction that stood at that time.I'm not sure what she should be apologising for?
Would you employ a paedophile as a babysitter? And if not, would the bloke you failed to employ deserve an apology from you if his conviction was later overturned? What exactly did you do wrong?
te and therefore I don't want him signed for my club regardless of him serving his sentence". amusingly I suspect that most of the pitchfork brigade would have had no issue watching the 'dirty Den' era eastenders....
Further to my post above, it is worth noting that criminal burden of proof is on the prosecutor to beyond reasonable doubt. For civil matters the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
This can give rise to someone being found not guilty in a criminal context, but having to pay damages for the same actions in a civil suit.
They are still not guilty, but definitely not the same outcome as “innocent”.
This can give rise to someone being found not guilty in a criminal context, but having to pay damages for the same actions in a civil suit.
They are still not guilty, but definitely not the same outcome as “innocent”.
irocfan said:
I think that some of the issues revolve around the "he's served his debt to society and should therefore be able to ply his trade" and "he's vile little ste and therefore I don't want him signed for my club regardless of him serving his sentence".
It's a complex issue, further complicated by him continuing to dispute his then conviction even after he'd completed his sentence (which in the context of that time was not constructive to him returning to his previous life).te and therefore I don't want him signed for my club regardless of him serving his sentence". Society is full of examples where we want to re-integrate convicted criminals into society, but we also want to continue to remind them of what they had done.
SpeckledJim said:
Not Guilty is the same as innocent.
Ah, jurisprudence.... There's a whole term's worth of a law degree arguing about stuff like this.I have some sympathy with the view of the guy you replied to. Not guilty could simply mean that the jury was only (for instance) 95% certain of guilt but couldn't quite make it to beyond reasonable doubt. Not being able to prove something is not the same as saying that someone didn't do it.
I prefer to think of it in terms of a venn diagram, with innocent as a sub-set of not guilty.
Edited by Lurking Lawyer on Thursday 11th April 13:14
saaby93 said:
Is it standard practice to sue your solictor if you get found guilty when innocent?
No - and (obviously) the mere fact that he was initially convicted doesn't in itself make his defence team negligent.The test is whether the solicitor had dealt with the case in a way that no reasonably competent criminal defence solicitor would have done. In this case, I assume (but don't know) that the allegation is that they left avenues unexplored in preparing for the first trial which came to light later and created enough doubt in the retrial to lead to the acquittal.
Interestingly, the two solicitors named in his press release are both sports law practitioners, not criminal defence specialists. I wonder whether they were dabbling and got out of their depth? I would be a bit surprised if that were the case as there's a world of difference between negotiating transfers and contracts and mounting a defence to a high profile rape charge.
Either way, the fact that Brabners (or rather their insurers) agreed to pay what is supposedly a high six figure sum suggests that there must have been a perceived real risk that a court would find in Evans' favour, which suggests that they implicitly accept that they got something wrong or missed something.
irocfan said:
I think that some of the issues revolve around the "he's served his debt to society and should therefore be able to ply his trade" .
I think that largely depends on your offence and your trade. If you get done for drink driving, you serve your ban and pay your fine. But you'll struggle to get a driving job immediately afterwards. Insurers aren't going to want you driving a coach or a 44tn artic. If that was your trade, you have a problem.
If you're a convicted rapist (and he was at the time), and your trade was gynaecologist, or policeman, I think you're going to struggle to ply your trade. Being a footballer these days is about more than playing football, you're involve with projects within the community, mixing with kids, etc. That's always going to be problematic as a convicted rapist.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think you're going to struggle to ply your trade. Being a footballer these days is about more than playing football, you're involve with projects within the community, mixing with kids, etc. That's always going to be problematic as a convicted rapist.
True, but I'd argue the actual % of footballers who do that is tiny, and except for the big earners far from compulsory.
hidetheelephants said:
His problem is less that he was convicted of being a rapist and more that his behaviour as revealed in evidence showed moral turpitude; an innocent scumbag is still a scumbag.
Multi-millionaire scumbag manages to find two scrotes with matching stories, who woulda thunk it!?Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff