407
submitted 1 year ago by Dazza@lemmy.world to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 84 points 1 year ago

There needs to be trust in the justice system. Otherwise, there's no point in having a justice system. If he's cleared, then there wasn't enough evidence and he should be considered innocent. That's how our justice system works. Don't break the social contract because of your vendetta against rich people.

The problem is that our society doesn't encourage people to immediately report crimes nor provide sufficient support for people who have been abused.

[-] n2burns@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago

and he should be considered ~~innocent~~ not guilty.

FTFY. Words have meanings and those meanings are important.

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Innocent until proven guilty*

[-] r1veRRR@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

NO! That is how the court system, and therefore the state sees him in regards to punishment and treatment. That does not mean, and has never ever ever ever meant, that being declared not guilty means they are proven to be innocent. Just that there's wasn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

[-] scottywh@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

This wasn't a US court... Does that apply on London?

[-] c0m47053@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago

Yes, the UK justice system works on the same principle

[-] scottywh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Innocent until proven guilty is literally the fundamental basis of our justice system. He is innocent by definition.

load more comments (65 replies)
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
407 points (95.1% liked)

World News

32238 readers
931 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS