A Legal Question

Not being a philosopher I was wondering if you could explain/translate my question in philosophical terms.

We are told: “You are innocent until proven guilty!” However, you are not allowed to plead “Innocent” but only allowed to plead: “Guilty” or “Not Guilty.” I believe the correct term for this situation is a “false dilemma.” Now if it is “impossible to prove a negative,” it would be impossible to prove your are innocent since we have moved the target from “proving innocence” to "proving not guilty. Wouldn’t that be stacking the deck by a Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy? :-k

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. You don’t have to prove the negative. They have to prove the positive.

“Not Guilty” is the lack of evidence for proving someone guilty. “Innocent” would mean there was evidence proving that you were not guilty (such as an ironclad alibi), but such evidence isn’t always retrievable. So while a “not guilty” verdict may remove any criminal liability, I think if evidence proving innocence does exist, the defendant should be able to have the judge declare that he was proven innocent as well, thus removing the cloud that hangs over a simple “not guilty” verdict.

I think that’s when you turn around and file civil suits. You can be not guilty in criminal courts, but if you really want to prove you’re innocent, then you’ve gotta show it’s someone else’s fault. Look at the Duke Lacrosse team. Those guys were totally innocent, and I think they may get a settlement or two.

I bet it stems from our puritain roots. No one is innocent, everyone’s a sinner by nature. So while you might be “not guilty” of the crime at hand, you’re never innocent.

“not-guilty” is another way of saying “innocent”. There’s really no big issue in calling it one way or another.

Thanks for your opinion.

The majority prefers expressing stupidities to not expressing any opinion: This gives them the feeling of participation. For this they only need simple thoughts, elementary explanations, a “key” that will permit them to take a position, and even ready made opinions. As most people have the desire and at the same time the incapacity to participate, they are ready to accept a propaganda that will permit them to participate, and which hides their incapacity beneath explanations, judgments, and news, enabling them to satisfy their desire without eliminating their incompetence. Jacques Ellul, “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes” (New York: 1973) Page 140.

Hey I guess there is no need for dictionaries since definition have no meaning anymore. Oh so when OJ got off for murdering his wife he was “innocent”? The adulterous woman got off on a technicality and she wasn’t innocent. Christ told her to stop sinning.

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 8:1-11

If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. Deut 22:22

And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10

Well I say your analogy is much like saying for women you’re a virgin since you are not pregnant. A virgin is innocent so she can’t be pregnant. However, non-virgins may not be pregnant at the same time, however they are no longer “innocent.”

With much respect to this wordish and precise definition of the well known forms of propaganda, i see no relation to what is defined here and 2 ways of expressing the same thing.

Most academics wouldn’t stop to think that innocent and guilty are opposites, what they define is clear and malleuable.

Not guilty, innocent, hasn’t done wrong, has only done right, should not be punished. That is what the term expresses.

So when someone says i am innocent, it is directly implied that they are not guilty (if pertaining to a specific crime).

And vice cersa, if i say i am not inocent, i am saying in other words, i am guilty.

The prosecution looks to prove guilt. A jury or judge would pass judgement on wether or not the prosecution can prove the offender guilty… or not…

The prosecution says “can we prove him guilty or not”

So though the proof presented might not prove guilt, it doesn’t prove innocence either, but innocence is assumed remember?

So saying he is innocent is superfluous. The outcome of the trial was that he was not found guilty.

great story… great moral…

The moral that you should not point out the shit in someone elses back yard if you have shit in your own.

It’s downright hippocritical.

I hope that you have a point for quoting this…

what the hell?

Well actually the court’s god is Justitia, the Roman pagan goddess of “justice.” So by saying “puritanical” your are implying the Holy Scriptures you are incorrect.

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. John 18:37-38

Yeah well when you see things as shades of gray instead of black and white you have that problem. Unlike a lemming I don’t follow a crowd. If your crowd thinks that way how am I to change your mind or your set course off the cliff.

Interesting little set up and take down you’ve crafted here. What’s the point? You’re so smart?

You mean am I competent to defend myself in court, unlike you? Am I competent enough to see that court is a scam, unlike you? I guess that would be a “Yes” to both.

You’re gonna end up with the same reputation you have on theologyonline if you keep up with that attitude ( -191). שמגר בן־ענת , maybe I’m mistaken, but it looks to me like you designed this thread as a trap?

So should worry my reputation will be “the smart one” or “the wise one.” Ah. . .it appears I uncovered the trap. . . the one you are willing to blindly step into. . . .

Proverbs 1:17 Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.

. . . .and it appears from your avatar you can see 20/20 black.

let’s see.

You see things as black and white.

I can see things in grey scale.

Who has better vision?

You claim to be un-lemming-like yet you’re trying to quote the bible to make a counter point (which i must have missed)

Who is my crowd? which way do i think? What cliff?

Why are you trying to make me seem like some outcast. Is your group exclusive?

What is your point.

Yeah, but obviously you can’t. No surprise.

Aww don’t do me like that…

I just had you backed up against a wall and then what… insults…

Cannot blame you though… It’s the logical animalistic reaction…

But please, if you’re feeling patient or generous, make a response to the post…

I wish i could be wrong for once…

:astonished: Can you help me?