Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 06:09 PM 9/7/1999 -0700, Roger Beamon wrote: >Boy, this is the stuff that grates on the lay public. Most would >agree that, if adjudicated 'not guilty' of the charges, then, dammit, >the defendant is innocent! What you seem to be saying is that, >once charged, you will forever have your innocence open to >question, even when the judge or jury says 'not guilty'! If that's >the way it is, it stinks! I'm sure that my simplistic point of view is >laughed at by the barristers, but as far as I'm concerned, they >have made the law so convoluted that it is easy to corrupt, and >get away with the corruption by virtue of our 'dumbed down' >public. Uh ... Roger, this is the way it's been since 3 SEP 1189. You often speak for the "old" ways. A tradition more than 800 years old IS one worthy of respect. This is not a new finagling by current folks. It is the way it has been for a long time. Around here, in any event, the folk are more cynical than you: being acquitted doesn't mean you're not guilty, it just means the government couldn't prove their case. You get the respect due a smart crook by the public, but no more. I understand from friends there that this attitude is more pronounced in Philadelphia, incidentally. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!