Re: This = That

["Arlen P. Walker" <Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM>]

Starting a political side trip, someone posted:

      If one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and then in
      trial found to be not guilty, doesn't that make "not guilty"
      equal to "innocent"?

The Scots have an interesting approach. The Jury has three choices to pick from:
Guilty, Innocent, and Not Proven. (This last choice means that while the jury
couldn't figure out if you were indeed innocent, the crown was not able to prove
your guilt. The last two combined form the US's "Not Guilty" verdict. I think
what the first poster was getting at is the belief that "Not Proven" is a long
way from "Innocent." In the theory behind our society, we are supposed to accept
that a "Not Guilty" verdict means "Innocent." The premise of an open and free
society is that everyone is expected to be a good citizen, and no one must be
hindered in any way without established proof. In our practice we are much less
than free and open; we tend to believe anyone -- or at least the majority -- of
folks put on trial are guilty, regardless of proof, and therefore "Not Guilty"
must mean they just got away with it, not that they were innocent. At root is
the old back-fence standby, "there's no smoke without fire, I always say.")

End of political side trip, back to Techwr business.


Have fun,
Arlen
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 24

Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
----------------------------------------------
In God we trust; all others must provide data.
----------------------------------------------