XPost: talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.guns, alt.current-events.usa   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.bush, alt.law-enforcement   
   From: webmaster@gemsgallery.org   
      
   "Peter H. Proctor"  wrote in message   
   news:fk67uv8bo5lo44hmhtcots9sahjg2nlnir@4ax.com...   
   > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:16:03 -0500, "GEM"    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   > >Wait. Let me guess. Its a play on words!!   
   > >   
   > >Nobody is EVER proven innocent in a court of law.   
   >   
   > The presumption is of innocence.  So lacking a guilty verdict,  the   
   > accused is "innocent" because this is their default status when they   
   > first walk into the court room.   
      
   As in innocent till proven guilty...   
      
   If one has been convicted of a heinous crime such as murder, then the person   
   has had that default innocent status removed by the courts - once they've   
   been "proven to be guilty" in a court of law. The poster claims that of   
   these people, none were ever later proven to be innocent. Since the court   
   does not attempt to prove innocence, the poster is correct, literally. :)   
      
   ====   
      
   > >The term "not guilty" does not mean "innocent", so, therefor, nobody has   
   > >ever been "proven" innocent whether they were executed or not.   
   >   
   > In addition to "guilty" and "innocent",  Scottish law allows a third   
   > verdict,    "not proven".   
   >   
   > Dr P   
      
   In the new Ashcroft/Bush/Cheney USA, the idea of innocent till proven guilty   
   has been set aside in favour of military secret courts and the older concept   
   of guilty till finances prove otherwise.   
      
   GEM   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)