15 ms·
Surely if what you say is true, the courts would have found him guilty, no?
by Spearchucker 9y ago
Surely if what you say is true, the courts would have found him guilty, no?
- marcoperaza 9y ago>Surely if what you say is true, the courts would have found him guilty, no? What are you actually arguing, other than pointing out that he was acquitted? A jury's determination of a person's guilt in a particular case doesn't tell you what the law is, or what it ought to be. Edit: gnode, that’s not true. Only determinations of law, which are only made by judges, are precedent. A jury verdict, which only determines questions of fact, is not precedent at all.
- gnode 9y agoIn a common law system, findings of a court set precedent for future trials. So yes, juries do tell you what the law is by telling you how to interpret it.