.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« The issue with verdicts of not guilty vs innocent are a complete furphy as even when the defendant is proven innocent, the judgement is not guilty and given the presumption of innocence, the judgement of not guilty assumes this »
.

No, not “a complete furphy”, Shadow Minister. That is a sweeping statement that is not true in all cases. When the defendant is proven innocent without the slightest shadow of a doubt, it becomes indisputably clear to everyone. The situation is quite different when the prosecution simply cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (as in the case of George Pell). Yet the defendants in both cases are equally declared “not guilty”.

While the George Pells of this world would have us believe that they too are innocent without the slightest shadow of a doubt – and the general public, in its large majority, takes this for granted – professional judges tend to be far more reserved in their attitude. Sex offenders are often repeat abusers. They are not very surprised when they see some of them back in their courts again.

A verdict of “not guilty” due to lack of evidence does not necessarily mean that the accused did not commit the crime. “Not guilty” does not necessarily mean “innocent”, despite popular belief to the contrary.

As I indicated in a previous post :

Pell’s trial is typical of most sex cases that boil down to “my word against yours”. The presumption of innocence combined with the adversarial system of justice assures quasi-legal impunity to the alleged offenders.

That does not qualify as justice. For it to be slightly more even-handed and still maintain the sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence, either the adversarial system should be replaced by the inquisitorial system, or the right of the accused to remain silent should be abolished.

But, whatever the system, adversarial or inquisitorial, in my view, there should be no presumptions of innocence or guilt in cases involving vulnerable people (minors and the mentally and physically handicapped).

.

Banjo,

Guilt is defined as the state of having committed an offense, by extension, not guilty is the state of not having committed an offense. this is commonly known as innocence. You are trying to fabricate another state of "not innocent".

SR,

As I made clear in an earlier thread, a single involved witness without a single shred of corroborating evidence is seldom considered sufficient evidence for a conviction no matter how convincing a witness especially decades later. The charge against Shorten was prime example.

Foxy,

Appeal courts are reluctant to overturn juries except in extreme cases. Do you still believe that Bill Shorten is innocent when the evidence against him is similar in quality?

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« Guilt is defined as the state of having committed an offence, by extension, not guilty is the state of not having committed an offence. this is commonly known as innocence. »
.

That’s correct, Shadow Minister. It is “commonly known as innocence”. That is the point I was making when I wrote :

« When the defendant is proven innocent without the slightest shadow of a doubt, it becomes indisputably clear to everyone. The situation is quite different when the prosecution simply cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (as in the case of George Pell). Yet the defendants in both cases are equally declared “not guilty”.

« While the George Pells of this world would have us believe that they too are innocent without the slightest shadow of a doubt – and the general public, in its large majority, takes this for granted »

The general public take it for granted because they think that not guilty is “commonly known as innocence”.

Professional judges, however, do not. They make a distinction between those who are “not guilty” due to empirical evidence of innocence and those who are “not guilty” due to lack of empirical evidence of guilt.

As I indicated in my previous post, sex offenders are often repeat abusers. Judges are not surprised to see some of them back in their courts again – after having been found “not guilty” in a previous case due to lack of empirical evidence of guilt.

.

Despite the 7/7 judgement of the High Court, lunatics of the Left are never going to leave Cardinal George Pell alone. They will continue to hound him, commit acts of vandalism and talk ignorant rubbish. All encouraged by Dirty Dan the Dunny Can Man, and their Australian Bloody Communist (ABC) broadcaster, which is followed by a miserable one third of Australians at huge cost to all Australians.

Of the 20 or so charges brought against the Cardinal by the hillbilly Victorian police and prosecutors, not one has been successful. All of those people should be in the Centrelink queues now. DD the DC Man should see to that, then he should resign.

This debacle and serious miscarriage of justice is a other reason why Victoria should allow trial by judge alone, at least for highly emotional cases like child abuse allegations, where baying mobs and the ABC run amok, and 12 people who, as far as the law goes, don't know their arses from their elbows, decide whether or not a person is guilty.

ttbn,

I wouldn't trust a judge or magistrate as far as I could throw one?