Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
Well, I am functionally illiterate, so I’m sure I don’t understand the distinction.
|
Not Guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it, it means that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. Reasonable doubt someone did something =/= someone definitely did not do that thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
If he did it, and there was evidence to convict him and send him to prison, he’d have been sent to prison.
|
Obviously. And if he did it, and there wasn't enough evidence to convict him and send him to prison, he wouldn't be sent to prison. It would look a lot like the current situation. So, what's your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
Do you want to live in a country where the testimony of one person, absent all other physical or forensic evidence, is enough to send another person to prison?
And if so, why?
|
No, why would I want that?
I don't think I should have to hand hold someone to ensure they understand the difference between saying "they reached the wrong verdict" and "a verdict doesn't determine truth." Unless you're completely ignorant to the existence of wrongful convictions and criminals going free and somehow believe the justice system to be infallible, then I'm not sure why you're pretending to argue against the latter when you ought to know as well as anyone what a verdict means and what it doesn't.