[lbo-talk] Johnny Cash RIP

[Shane Mage]

>At 10:25 AM -0700 12/9/03, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
>>Innocent but not wrongly convicted. the guy wouldn't
>>give his alibi b/c he was in the arms of his best
>>friend's wife. jks
>
>From this comment I can only deduce your philosophy to be that, if 
>an accused refuses to prove his innocence, then his resulting 
>conviction is legally correct.
>
>This is the opposite of the doctrine of innocent until proven 
>guilty. Where an accused has no responsibility to prove anything, 
>rather the state has the burden of proving everything.
>
>I cannot see how you can continue to maintain that the US legal 
>system operates according to a presumption of innocence in criminal 
>matters, while also maintaining that it is correct to convict an 
>innocent person who refuses to prove their innocence?

You seem to forget that Justin speaks what he calls "lawish," not
English.  My translation of "wrongful conviction" in his text is
"decided to be wrongful by an appellate court."  Guilt or innocence,
at least in the sense of those words held by users of English,
have nothing to do with it.

Shane Mage


>
>Perhaps you can explain this apparent contradiction? The most 
>obvious explanation is that you don't actually understand the 
>concept of innocent until proven guilty.  Given that you are a 
>lawyer this would indicate that, far from innocent until proven 
>guilty being the presumption in the US legal system, it is an alien 
>concept utterly incomprehensible to that system.
>
>The time has come for travel warnings to alert people from free 
>countries to the dangers of entering within the jurisdiction of what 
>is for all intents and purposes a police state.
>
>Bill Bartlett
>Bracknell Tas
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk