Re: This = That

[Beverly Parks <bparks -at- HUACHUCA-EMH1 -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL>]

Since when is the questioning of word definition and usage a
"side trip" from technical writing? Gee, and I thought writing
was all about words...

Bev Parks
bparks -at- huachuca-emh1 -dot- army -dot- mil

> 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.