take for example
guilt·y
[gil-tee]–adjective, guilt·i·er, guilt·i·est.1.having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, esp.against moral or penal law; justly subject to a certainaccusation or penalty; culpable: The jury found her guilty of murder.
it used to be that if you added "not" in front of "guilty" it meant the opposite of guilty, or to put it another way,
in·no·cent
[in-uh-suhnt]
–adjective1.free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.2.free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.
it seems however, that these old anachronistic rules of grammar no longer apply (or i am just getting old and having trouble keeping up). especially to high profile criminals. for example, jared loughner, the man accused (and i *have* to use the word accused here because i could get sued for libel if i don't!) of the shooting spree in arizona has plead not guilty. now for some so-called "facts". there are statements from some 250 witnesses. he was tackled on the scene of the crime and handed over to the police. the shooting was caught on video tape.
now i'm 100% behind the tenat of innocent until proven guilty (which sadly does not apply to the IRS) and reasonable doubt and all that, but i think we are well beyond a reasonable doubt here. all we're doing is wasting time, money and creating a media circus. and what's more? the judge entered the not guilty plea on his behalf.
1 comment:
Interesting post, but here are four comments:
1. In most Capital Offense cases, in many States, a mandatory plea of "Not Guilty" is required. The idea being that the State has to prove its case (or in this case, the Feds). So a plea of "not guilty" in this case is not unusual - it may in fact, be required.
2. The Defense Attorney no doubt will plead "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" - which is not the same as saying "I didn't do it" but rather a legal standard that at the time the crime was committed, the person wasn't capable of distinguishing right from wrong. I don't like it either, but it has been the law of the land for long time.
3. "Not Guilty" in terms of a verdict is NOT the same as "Innocent" as your post implies. It only means the person could not be proven guilty in court - enough to convince a Judge or Jury. O.J. Simpson was not "found innocent" by a Jury, he was found "Not Guilty" and there is a world of difference between the two.
4. I seriously doubt that you will be sued for saying that kid in Arizona is guilty of shooting those people. First of all, he hasn't any money to sue you with. Second, he wouldn't be able to prove what you said is untrue (particularly in a Civil court, where the standard of proof is lower). Third, he has a lot more pressing things to do with his time right now. Fourth, he'd have to sue hundreds of thousands of people who are saying the same thing.
I agree with you that it is silly how the media will say "alleged shooter" as if it was in doubt. No doubt they are getting bad advice from nervous lawyers in their legal department. But is just an example of how people go overboard these days about issues like that.
But no, "Not Guilty" is not the same as "Innocent" from a legal perspective.
Post a Comment