Apparently rikard was found innocent (according to some). I thought he was found not guilty. I understood the test the jury applied was beyond reasonable doubt. Were the jury asked to decide his innocence?
He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, not guaranteed innocent by a decision of not guilty.
I regularly speed, in fact I did so tonight on the ATNR.
I didn't get caught, or convicted, so am I innocent or guilty of speeding on tonights ATNR?
Finding him not guilty doesn't mean he isn't guilty of committing the crime in question, it may well mean only that the prosecution failed to prove their case adequately.
A court does not guarantee that the truth will be found. Evidence may be lost, burried, concealed or simply unavailable or undiscovered. Does it follow that a person automatically innocent in such circumstances?
Should he be held accountable in any way for the actions he was found not guilty of? That is a different question and not one which I am arguing. In the eyes of the law, he must be treated as if he were innocent, however to say simply that he was found not guilty by a court therefore he is innocent is naive in the extreme.
Bookmarks