Not Guilty

[Mr. Scot]

I don't know. Point is because you had a bunch of morons serving with you doesn't mean that is always the case or even typically the case. That's a silly assumption.

So is assuming they were all perfectly intelligent people who made an informed decision based on the evidence.

You don't know them either. My judgment of their intelligence is based on the fact that I think they made a stupid decision. You're free to think otherwise.

[teeray]

uhhhh.....yes it is

basically, a jury will never come back and say, we find you innocent. never.

you can claim your innocence, but from the day you are indicted....you will either be found guilty or not guilty based on the evidence and facts presented in the case.

Exactly but you are innocent until proven guilty therefore by law if you are not proven to be guilty you are considered innocent.

Therefore, if you are found not guilty you are presumed to be innocent. Just because you believe she is guilty doesn't make it true.

[Jangler]

:lol:

You still can't find somebody innocent.

[bleys]

unless you sink, then we know you are innocent.

:lol: back in Salem, I see...

[teeray]

So is assuming they were all perfectly intelligent people who made an informed decision based on the evidence.

So if jury finds a person "not guilty" they are stupid?? How can people say stupid things and call other people stupid?? (just a joke I know yuz smart Scot).

[Zaximus]

First off, I think I've said in another thread, this was blown way up, when tons of people die everyday to crazier things. It was still tragic though.

Secondly, I understand not giving murder one. I don't think they did a great job of proving the case, instead went off thinking the jury would convict just based on what they felt (which, most people know she did it). I feel like they didn't give her murder one because she could get the death penalty and no one wanted that on their hands.

I don't understand not getting manslaughter though. I'm quite sure she incapacitated her daughter, probably to go out and all that. She was definitely at fault. I don't think she meant to kill her daughter, but she should have got manslaughter at least. One thing is for sure, she should be spending some time behind bars, 10-20 years, etc. I also wish she could be banned from having kids ever again but you know.

I expected this though. This was a media frenzy, it was almost an event for American more so than a court case. We always do this with things, court cases, natural disasters, it's just human nature. Most people know she was wrong, and it is really easy for those of us sitting in front of the TV/computer to make a judgment, but we aren't the ones sitting on the jury deciding the course of someone's life (or the possible end to it), with just "pretty sure she did it" in our minds. I definitely wouldn't want someone's life in my hands like that, and I wouldn't make a decision unless I felt 100% sure.

What a circus though, I'm happy it's over, and that poor girl can rest in peace now. Unfortunately like someone mentioned, she'll write a book and become a millionaire, when people shouldn't buy it at all and let it rest. They won't though.

[boo7382]

Exactly but you are innocent until proven guilty therefore by law if you are not proven to be guilty you are considered innocent.

Therefore, if you are found not guilty you are presumed to be innocent. Just because you believe she is guilty doesn't make it true.

Just because I believe she is guilty doesn't mean my opinion has any say in the matter.

A jury either finds you guilty or not guilty chief. End of story. The day they come back and say, we find you innocent, you can begin trolling again.

[Cat]

So is assuming they were all perfectly intelligent people who made an informed decision based on the evidence.

You don't know them either. My judgment of their intelligence is based on the fact that I think they made a stupid decision. You're free to think otherwise.

Did you watch the whole trial? did you get to see all the evidence they put up on all the jurors screens?

Seems like a lot of opinion and judgment coming from someone not even in the same state.

[Zaximus]

She's certainly not guilty, but also not innocent either.

If you can't prove how a person died, you probably aren't gonna hang someone for it.

Sometimes. People have been convicted of murder without a body before.

[teeray]

:lol:

You still can't find somebody innocent.

I never said that? I said finding her not guilty means she is still considered innocent because they couldn't prove her guilt.

It's semantics but if you are not guilty you should be considered innocent because until a guilty verdict is reached you are presumed innocent.

[Mr. Scot]

And for the record, I don't find setting a guilty person free any less repugnant than I do an innocent person going to jail.

A victim is denied justice when a guilty person goes free, and often someone else winds up hurt or dead as well.

Neither of those options holds any appeal whatsoever to me. They're equally bad.

[Jangler]

I'm happy it's over, and that poor girl can rest in peace now.

Really? A murderer is free to live his or her life.

[teeray]

Just because I believe she is guilty doesn't mean my opinion has any say in the matter.

A jury either finds you guilty or not guilty chief. End of story. The day they come back and say, we find you innocent, you can begin trolling again.

You can't find someone innocent that is already innocent.

[Jangler]

I never said that? I said finding her not guilty means she is still considered innocent because they couldn't prove her guilt.

It's semantics but if you are not guilty you should be considered innocent because until a guilty verdict is reached you are presumed innocent.

Do they say innocent or not guilty? You can't find somebody innocent!