View Poll Results: Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, "innocent" would be a welcome addition as an option.

    11 28.95%
  • No, but we should treat "not guilty" as "innocent".

    7 18.42%
  • No, the current system works fine. ('Splain yerself, Lucy)

    18 47.37%
  • Something else.

    2 5.26%
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 104

Thread: Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?

  1. #51
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,634

    Re: Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    I was thinking the same thing and I'm a logger not a lawyer.
    one of the biggest problems we have in this country is lawyers pretending that only they can understand what are mostly pretty plain and obvious foundations of our system of laws



  2. #52
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

    Re: Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    What I am advocating is that we adopt the Scottish system, under which "Not Proven' indicates that although the jury believes the accused to be guilty but there is not enough evidence for a conviction.
    That's entirely irrelevant. Even if they think he's guilty, if they acquit him, he gets off scot free. Why bother adding another level to it?
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  3. #53
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?

    Why change something that isn't at a problem at all?

    The system is not designed to prove innocence. The system is not designed to influence public opinion. The system is designed to prosecute suspected criminals, who are presumed by the system to be innocent until proven guilty.

    The key word the whole time is "system".

    Individual people are free to think some mother ****er is guilty, regardless of the verdict, and they are free to think a mother ****er is innocent regardless of the verdict. Their opinions are not bound, in any way shape or form, by the outcomes in a court of law. That's where civil cases come into play. And even if someone is not guilty (or innocent if that term floats your boat better) of a crime, they can certainly still be legally culpable for damages in some way.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #54
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,407

    Re: Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    That's entirely irrelevant. Even if they think he's guilty, if they acquit him, he gets off scot free. Why bother adding another level to it?
    In the present system, if a person is acquitted (found not guilty), but then has to face a civil trial and/or DoJ civil rights violation charges, how does that qualify as "scot free"?
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  5. #55
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,960

    Re: Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    In the present system, if a person is acquitted (found not guilty), but then has to face a civil trial and/or DoJ civil rights violation charges, how does that qualify as "scot free"?
    civil trials and criminal trials require different standards.

  6. #56
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

    Re: Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    In the present system, if a person is acquitted (found not guilty), but then has to face a civil trial and/or DoJ civil rights violation charges, how does that qualify as "scot free"?
    They shouldn't be, that's another liberal trick for getting around the Constitution. Once you're acquitted, you're done and you shouldn't be able to be sued at all for the same crime. This country is going right down the liberal toilet.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  7. #57
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,407

    Re: Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    They shouldn't be, that's another liberal trick for getting around the Constitution. Once you're acquitted, you're done and you shouldn't be able to be sued at all for the same crime. This country is going right down the liberal toilet.
    I would agree with that, and is pretty much the intent behind my original suggestion.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  8. #58
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,634

    Re: Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    They shouldn't be, that's another liberal trick for getting around the Constitution. Once you're acquitted, you're done and you shouldn't be able to be sued at all for the same crime. This country is going right down the liberal toilet.
    I have to disagree. two different parties

    two different standards of proof.



  9. #59
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,407

    Re: Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I have to disagree. two different parties

    two different standards of proof.
    Why *should* differing standards of proof matter?
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  10. #60
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,634

    Re: Should "innocent" be an option as a verdict in criminal trials?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Why *should* differing standards of proof matter?
    well lets look at OJ. The state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt (actually they did-that was a complete joke of a trial and a judge and a jury but since I believe its better 10 scumbags go free than one innocent man hang I can live with it) but the Father of the slain boy could prove that it was more likely than not that OJ knifed his son.

    you see, and I don't want to bore you with lectures of Issue Preclusion or Collateral Estoppel, it would be unfair to Mr Goldman to be prevented from suing OJ for a tort (wrongful death) due to the outcome of a trial where he was unable to present his case or call his own witnesses



Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •