I'm a firm believer in it.

Innocent until proven guilty?
 

Not so .....

That may be true of a particular case, but an accused may have a criminal record for the same or similar offences stretching back decades .....

That may indicate a high degree of 'guilt' Omah, but it is in not certain, not absolute: to be guilty because of 'past crimes' isn't the way forward - we have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person is guilty.

And thank god for that - that's all I'm saying.

What about the cases where it's generally thought the jury got it wrong, does the fact OJ Simpson was found not guilty mean we must there consider him so in our minds for example?

What we think 'in our minds' is light years away from being on a jury and being party to every piece of salient information that is available - it is upto those responsible to prove without any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty.

If they cannot do so: they are either 'wrong' in their assumption that the person is guily / cannot provide evidence to back up their case / are inept at their job / or do not have enought evidence (even circumstantial - ie: Nat Fraser was found guilty based on circumstantial evidence).

Obviously, I've already said I believe it is the correct basis for a legal system and trial, however juries are only human and are not infallible and do make mistakes sometimes, just because someone has not been declared guilty by a court doesn't mean we aren't free to consider them so based on the information available

I didn't say that a record may indicate guilt - in Crown Court cases, the jury is often unaware of the accused's past until he is found guilty of the offence for which he is standing trial - only then may they become aware that the former accused did not, in fact have an "unblemished" record .....


Innocent of a crime, maybe, but not necessarily as innocent as the day they were born .....

sorry, I missed your point in all of this then.

Innocent until proven guilty. It's dependent on the evidence available....if there is not enough evidence to prove guilt: then person is innocent...


I'm unclear which part of that you have not understood?

that's all you need be concerned with... innocent of a crime: as decided from a jury.

Why do I need to be concerned ?

IIRC, from my jury experience, the foreman does not, indeed, declare "Innocent", but "Not Guilty" ..... ;)

given that you are commenting and taking a high degree of interest in the thread... I'd have thought that was 'self explanatory' Omah..

I'm just passing through - you're the one with 6 posts ..... :xyxwave: