Careful who you know.

[oompah]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7787211.stm
Although cleared of any wrong doing and therefore totally innocent he his not allowed to be free because according to this article and a statement given by his solicitor he his still in jail,is justice being done?It alleges because he knew the bombers then he is not conducive for public good,must be millions like him then.

 

[tim west]

Sounds like the old tar brush is out again, as you say how many more innocent people are being held in prison?

 

[toasty]

True,

But just because you weren't found to be guilty, doesn't actually make you innocent does it? It just means they couldn't prove that you were guilty.

 

[toasty]

Although cleared of any wrong doing and therefore totally innocent .

I'm not sure that being cleared does mean that you are necessarily totally innocent. Just means that they can't prove you did it.


a) I smash a neighbours window
b) someone thinks they saw me do it
c) I go to court
d) they can't prove it was me

So I get to go free, I'm not innocent though am I? I mean, I did smash the window.

 

[tim west]

Is that the case then?

 

[oompah]

True,

But just because you weren't found to be guilty, doesn't actually make you innocent does it? It just means they couldn't prove that you were guilty.

Surely it does,innocent until proved guilty, or am I nieve.

 

[toasty]

I don't think it does.

You are only innocent of a crime if you didn't do it.

I can think of lots of cases where people have been cleared of crimes that they did, therefore they can't be innocent.

Probably a bad example, but do you think OJ Simpson was innocent or cleared?

 

[tim west]

in the first post it states he was cleared of any wrong doing, That seems to not be enough for some? So the question is when does it get to the point in any decision made by the court where a person is completely innocent or are there shades of innocence and therefore shades of guilt.

Maybe its time for someone to redefine the word cleared in this context?

The danger here is in pre-judging someone or should that be post-judging someone , something i've had personal experience of on this forum by another poster.

 

[toasty]

Tim,

I think you misunderstand me.

I don't know if he had any involvement in the bombings or not. The only person who knows for sure is him.

I'm simply saying that just because a court can't prove you guilty of something , doesn't mean you didn't do it.

Conversely, just because a court proves that you did do something, doesn't make you guilty.

In my mind:
Guilty = you did it.
Innocent = you didn't do it.

With the best will in the world, a court can only make a best effort guess at which one you are.

 

[oompah]

The trouble is the Home Office deem him guilty of association.He was cleared of all wrong doing which in the eyes of the law he his totally innocent
of charges leveled against him.

 

[tim west]

sorry toasty i didnt misunderstand you i was merely adding to the debate.

 

[tim west]

The trouble is the Home Office deem him guilty of association.He was cleared of all wrong doing which in the eyes of the law he his totally innocent
of charges leveled against him.

then i presume he has a case against the home office of pre-judging his character just because he knew them or was friends with them.

What about the family and friends of serial killers are they also guilty of association?

Its certainly going to get messy with pro and against this particular case.

 

[toasty]

What about the family and friends of serial killers are they also guilty of association?

Good point, I suppose it depends whether or not you knew they were serial killers or bombers.

 

[tim west]

and that would be hard to prove, i'm presuming this is the argument in this case?

 

[toasty]

You are right, it would be.

I'm just saying that if you knew someone was a serial killer or bomber, you should tell the police. If you don' tell them, then surely that's wrong and a crime in itself?