BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:As I said earlier, innocence and guilt are legal determinations, not statements of actuality. Being found innocent doesn’t mean you didn’t commit the act of which you’ve been accused, and being found guilty doesn’t mean you committed the act. What they mean is that judges and juries have evaluated the evidence and determined whether or not it is sufficient to convict you.
Then someone that is in jail for killing 30 people is not guilty of killing those people. Maybe to you but not according to the law
The definition of conviction is "a formal declaration by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law that someone is guilty of a criminal offence."
I don't know what u mean by "statement of actuality" but when your convicted it means you have been judged to be guilty of a crime by the state
And as i said b4 a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Im not sure what kind of "statement of actuality" ur looking for but the courts ruling is one of authority which presides over everything
But weather u want to call it convicted, guilty, innocent or whatever is up to u, doesn't really matter.
BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Based on the track record of the Church on this matter, I’m inclined to believe that Pell did what he is accused of.
You know the courts can't take this approach right as it violates basic principles of our justice system.
But it's fair enough, at least ur saying this not like others that deny this and then fail to give any reason for their opinion.
The error of that position is this, assuming a guilty defendant instead of an innocent one, as per norm, opens the door to false allegations
It basically says there are no false accusations. But like i said at least ur honest about were ur coming from
In general a false accusation is worse than the crime. A case that sees a not guilty verdict should then be flipped around to put the integrity of the accuser.
If an accuser is found to be guilty of giving false testimony (perjury) then the sentence should equal the allegation
For example u get accused of raping a girl 20 years ago. Possible sentence is 15 on the bottom, life on the top.
Ur found not guilty while another trial finds her guilty of perjury. She then should be sentenced to 15 to life as well
Whats worse the crime or the false accusation?
A crime can last 5 seconds even less if you shoot someone, a rush of blood, a bad reaction.
Perjury however requires months and years of careful planning and fronting and acting and lying and a total disregard for anyone else, all to destroy a persons life.
Its a sinister premeditation that only a sick person could be able to perform
