XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: fwbrown@bellsouth.net   
      
   In alt.fan.tolkien Julian Bradfield  wrote:   
   >   
   > The entire criminal legal system of English-based jurisdictions is   
   > based on the principle that absence of evidence for is evidence   
   > against. A jury is required to weigh the evidence for conviction. If   
   > the prosecution presents no evidence, it must accept that as evidence   
   > of innocence and acquit.   
      
   In US courtrooms a person is not acquitted because they are found   
   innocent.  The verdict is "not guilty," based upon the prosecution   
   being unable to prove the person guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."   
   So a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean the defendant is innocent, it   
   means "We don't really know if you're innocent but there's not enough   
   evidence to be certain you're guilty."  In essence, our legal system   
   doesn't declare you innocent, it merely treats you as if you are innocent   
   unless it can prove otherwise.   
      
   I look at "absence of evidence for" not as "evidence against" but as   
   evidence that there's simply no way to know (in a scientific sense) one   
   way or the other.  So if an opinion is held it must be based on something   
   other than scientific proof, like faith (faith in God, faith in logic,   
   faith in your own ability to separate fact from fiction, etc.)   
      
   --   
   F. Wayne Brown    
      
   Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg.  ("That passed away, this also can.")   
      from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)