Think he did it?
-
tamborino — 20 years ago(May 19, 2005 03:36 PM)
I think if you are found not guilty of a capital crime you should be immune from civil lawsuits. A jury said Not Guilty, that means not guilty. A civil suit allows rumor and innuendo, hardly fair it seems.
Juries have been wrong before and people they've declared innocent have later been proven guilty through DNA evidence. So no, a jury saying not guilty doesn't always mean not guilty. It means they didn't have enough evidence at the time of trial to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. -
sterrence-1 — 19 years ago(July 02, 2006 09:32 PM)
Technicalities happen ofcourse. BUT THE FACT REMAINS, HE WAS FOUND INNOCENT. If you wish to plead a case, I'm sure you could shop through the KKK's "I didn't hang em" files and find a much greater number of cases to investigate guilt or innocence.
-
vmsmithe — 20 years ago(June 16, 2005 01:04 AM)
I think if you are found not guilty of a capital crime you should be immune from civil lawsuits. A jury said Not Guilty, that means not guilty.
Being found Not Guilty is not the same thing as being found innocent. Our jury system does not determine innocence. Therefore civil suits seem to me to be a very good method for injured parties to seek redress when they have been failed by the criminal system. -
amyjames615 — 20 years ago(November 08, 2005 09:52 PM)
You said:
"Being found Not Guilty is not the same thing as being found innocent. Our jury system does not determine innocence."
This may be true by definition; HOWEVER, isn't the saying, "Innocent until proven guilty" ? If so, wouldn't it suffice to say that IF one is found "not guilty" - in other words, they were NOT "proven guilty" - if the saying is suitable, they are, by default, INNOCENT?
Just a thought on semantics as for this case, I think he did it. But I do agree with the previous poster - if one is found not guilty, I think it's ridiculous that a civil suit can still be filed and won. As stated, even though someone is found not guilty, they may have actually done it well, maybe they actually DIDN'T - if the evidence wasn't there to convict, it seems unfair that they can still be held responisible. What if the evidence was correct?
On another related note I find it interesting that someone can be found "not gulity" then found liable in a civil suit and ordered to pay major money for their "crime," but one can be found guilty, incarcerated for years, then freed b/c DNA evidence or a confession finally corroberates their story (the system FAILED in a major way) and what do they get? Not alot. They're freedom back - but what will replace the years they lost? I think they are awarded some money - but not as much as these civil suits.
Despite its shortcomings, we still ahve the fairest system oout there - but I hate that there are no absolutes - even in law. -
wclark1998 — 20 years ago(November 18, 2005 08:15 PM)
you're reasoning is faulty.
If you are found guilty then you are not innocent.
Our legal system adheres strictly to this principle.
However, this does not mean if you are NOT found Guilty then you are innocent.
This is what one would call a false contrapositive.
One cannot draw conclusions based upon a Not Guilty (i.e., "aquitted") verdict. They could be guilty, or innocent. There is simply not enough proof. -
amyjames615 — 20 years ago(November 20, 2005 08:09 PM)
I get it - and I understand. I just don't agree.
There's no "innocent" verdict. Guilty or not guilty. The "innocent until proven gulity" theory is not exercized today. We, the general population, are so ready to blame and hold responsible, we almost always feel if the authorities had enough "proof" to make an arrest, they must be guilty - and if they're found "not guilty," we usually think it's b/c the "got off," the prosecution didn't make a good case, someone lied for them, etc rarely do we think, "well, they must not have done it, then." We are definitely a "guilty, as charged" society. So, the fact that there is not an "innocent" verdict only proves my point.
There's no "Innocence Project" for civil suits. Think about how many people have been "proven guilty" only later to be exonerated b/c new evidence was able to prove they didn't do it. If the courts weren't able to find them guilty to begin with, it seems a travesty that they could later be found responsible in a civil suit.
Don't get me wrong, in many cases I think the "not guilty" verdict was wrong - they WERE guilty - however, the burden of proof is on prosecutors. If they FAIL to prove it "beyond a shadow of a doubt," it should be over. I believe that this is "double jeopardy" - just has a prettier name. -
XtroTerrestial — 20 years ago(June 06, 2005 05:33 PM)
It's so sad whenever a celebrity commits an unspeakable crime and always seems to get off with a slap on the wrist. Just because someone is a big name doesn't give them the right to go commit rape, assault, battery, murder and anything left unsaid. I remember years ago Christian Slater went to jail (I believe it was domestic abuse, I could be wrong) and not only got a suspended sentance (less than 6 months in jail), but was allowed to have cable and bring other personal items. He was even allowed to leave jail for the premeire of Hard Rain. So it seems that even if a celebrity goes to jail, it's like they are staying at a country club or something like that. It's just plain sickening.
"Meet me at the waterfront, after the social." Angela Baker, Sleepaway Camp -
Liljan-2 — 20 years ago(July 29, 2005 06:04 AM)
I wouldn't like to think so, but only for sentimental reasons - "Baretta" is an old favourite of mine. But common sense tells me that there is enough circumstantial evidence to make his guilt likely.
Poor nations are hungry, and rich nations are proud; and pride and hunger will ever be at variance. - Jonathan Swift -
absolute213 — 20 years ago(August 02, 2005 09:02 PM)
The poster who said the following is correct:
- tdthomas16 (Sun May 15 2005 21:12:33 )
I think if you are found not guilty of a capital crime you should be immune from civil lawsuits. A jury said Not Guilty, that means not guilty. A civil suit allows rumor and innuendo, hardly fair it seems.
Not guilty means not guilty. Frivilous civil suits such as the OJ civil trial with a biased judge and an overzealous, easily manipulated jury lead to unjust judgements that the innocent party, yes I said INNOCENT, should never have to pay.
Blake didn't do it, as OJ didn't do it also. They each had to spend their lifes work away to prove their innocence over a state that decides to spend too much of the taxpayers cash trying to put innocent people5b4 behind bars.
And to the person who wanted to know if Blake wanted to try to find the real killer. That would only cause problems due to the fact Blake would probably thank him from relieving him from the loveless marriage he was trapped in, and society would call him a "terrible man" for that and condemn him more than they already have. Blake just needs to go on with his life, look for work, and count his blessings.
- tdthomas16 (Sun May 15 2005 21:12:33 )
-
actorguy — 20 years ago(August 04, 2005 01:11 PM)
to all above. I'm not going to give an opinion of if he did or did not do the act at question. However I wanted to put my two cents in and say he was NOT found innocent. He was NOT found not guilty. He was aquitted of charges because there was a lack of evidence to prove he had anything to do with the crime. There is a big difference in all of these.