It’s understood that way among 100% of the omniscient beings I know. The mehums just use Not Guilty and Innocent as synonyms for situations they couldn’t possibly know the truth of.
Enjoy,
Steven
We are not required to incorporate legal terms of art in our everyday discourse. TG, IANAL, and am not constrained to redefine “innocent” as being other than completely blameless, nor am I compelled to regard Mr. Stevens (R- NO!) as an honest civil service cruelly abused.
'Splain pliz. You mean OJ really didn’t kill anyone? Or was that a whoosh, too subtle to be noticed by non-omniscients?
I’ve always felt that there should be a difference between not guilty and innocent. If the jury decides that the defense has proved innocence, the defendent should get reimbursed for legal fees and possibly other compensation. If it’s merely undecided and finds not enough evidence to convict, everyone goes home and we call it a draw.
My opinion of Stevens has always been very low. Two of my long time least favorite Senators were Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd. Different parties but same animal, old guys who controlled the appropriations committee due to the seniority system in the Senate. The appropriations committee doesn’t get as much attention in the media as many things, but controlling it is arguably the most powerful position in the Senate in terms of money–moreso than Senate Majority Leader. Through their back-and-forth control of that committee chair Byrd and Stevens have brought about the greatest amount of pork barrel spending of any Senators across the span of their careers.
Long before the corruption charges I was anti-Stevens, so it was a bit of a sweet dessert that his reputation was being publicly destroyed.
However, prosecutorial misconduct probably disgusts me more than pork barrel spending. Our Justice system is only vaguely about equitable and just results as it is, when the prosecutors don’t even play by the rules, and especially when they are politically motivated, then it becomes almost a farce. The prosecutors should face the harshest form of punishment they can receive for what they did.
I also think Stevens should be retried, however once you have “proof” in the court of public opinion that the government acted in a corrupt manner in its prosecution of you I think it will be hard to find twelve people who will convict. It’s sort of like the Fuhrman thing with O.J., Fuhrman being a lying racist who was most likely corrupt didn’t mean O.J. was innocent but it certainly guaranteed he’d be acquitted.
Sure. If Innocent has a strict definition of “did not do it, absolutely and without question” and Not Guilty has a strict definition of “was not convicted” then it takes either personal knowledge or impossibility due to circumstances for anyone to ever be Innocent. If constrained by this definition of Innocence, then I must take the same position regarding OJ’s involvement in the murder of Nichole Brown-Simpson and Ronald Goldman as I take regarding the existance or non-existance of God. I don’t know. There is evidence which makes me lean towards one viewpoint, but I don’t claim my understanding is absolute.
The real facts of Stevens alleged crimes are not known to any of us. Thus, using a strict definition of Innocent, we can’t say if he is or not.
The actual usage of Innocent does not demand this stricture in everyday conversation. Innocent is a synonym of Not Guilty in actual usage. One does not have to have infallible knowledge of innocence to use the term innocent. This is not a legalistic point. It is a common usage one. Innocent does not mean “examined with an omniscient viewer and established as innocent.” It simply means not guilty and is the default unless guilt is proven to some reasonable standard.
Enjoy,
Steven
No, it’s quite possible for someone to be Innocent. It’s just not possible for anyone to be known to be Innocent.
Then no one should ever use the word innocent in this type of context. This is a bit of a non-starter though because it’s perfectly appropriate in everyday usage to say a person who has not even been tried is innocent.
Thus my comment about omniscient beings. Omniscient beings could use the word Innocent with the rigor ElvisL1ves is proposing. The rest of us, acknowledging our lack of omniscience, may use it less rigorously, and in fact do, every day. This is not necessarily a barrier to communication between those who wish to use this rigorous definition and those who use it as per common usage. Both can communicate as long as neither attempts to force the other to comply with their view of how the word should be used. Trying to do so brings us to the kind of linguistic wrangling we’re in here.
If there is evidence against Stevens, it should be used to prosecute him. We should not tolerate corruption. If there were unethical or illegal actions on the part of the former prosecutors they should be sanctioned or indicted. We do not tolerate prosecutorial abuse. From the outside this could look like a political prosecution. We didn’t approve of it when Alberto Gonzales was putting more scrutiny on Democrats and the elections they were elected under than on Republicans and their winning elections. Why should it be overlooked now? If the end result of this use of the justice system was to get a Republican to lose an election then I, for one, deplore this action. If you have evidence, bring it. If you don’t, then don’t bring it. If you bring it without evidence, you deserve Nifong’s fate.
The Justice Department should get to the bottom of this. It looks very bad from the outside.
Enjoy,
Steven
To get back to the point, if we may: Don’t you think there’s enough evidence under the rules of the court of public opinion that Stevens was crooked, *irrespective *of the Bush DOJ’s bungling of the legal case against him?
(Psst … that’s where the difference between “Not Guilty” and “Innocent” comes into it. Helpful hint for ya there)
If that was their intent, it looks like it’s not going to work. The judge has ordered the disclosure of all the exculpatory evidence to the defense team and the court. The Washington Post story suggests that the judge may use this info to order addidional punishment on some of the prosecutors. If I were Stevens, I’d be thinking about the mother of all civil liability lawsuits. I know the government has some form of immunity, but I understand there have been some pretty big settlements in malicious prosecution cases. Or maybe that’s urban legend?
Of course, if Stevens is actually guilty (in the sense of actually having done them, not in the legal sense) of the crimes he was convicted of unfairly, such a lawsuit my reveal more information than he would like. And while we may consider Stevens’ actual guilt or innocence an unknowable, I’d imagine that he knows whether or not he broke the law. Then again, from the little I’ve seen of him, he does seem to be getting a bit senile.
How about firing them, bringing them up on ethics charges and investigating the possibility of criminal charges. Since when does ethical incompetence lead to a job as an administrative judge?
Since forever. :rolleyes: